Unofficial conspiracy theorists and Official conspiracy theorists, can you explain these anomalies about 9/11?

Question

1. A Boeing 767 travelling at 590 mph has more energy than a Boeing 757 travelling at 530 mph. (Bigger plane - more mass, higher speed, therefore more kinetic energy). Also reinforced concrete and steel can sustain greater impact than glass and steel. How come the 757 plowed through more than 235 feet of concrete and steel (Pentagon) and the 767 couldn't even go through 208 feet of glass and steel (WTC tower 2)?

2. A 1368 foot tall building with 110 floors (approx 12.44 ft per floor) takes 96.9 seconds to collapse under the "pancaking" or "progressive collapse" theory. The WTC towers took close to 10 seconds. 9.25 seconds is the free fall time from the top of the towers. So what force accelerated the collapse of the towers?

3. Gravity on the earth's surface is a unidirectional force : DOWNWARDS. Why are there plumes and projectiles going sideways and upwards in the videos of the WTC collapse?

Don't merely cry "conspiracy theory". Provide scientific reasoning.

There are many more. But let's start with these 3.

INFTCCO, I asked for SCIENTIFIC explanations, not your out-of-the-*** opinion. Which part of that didn't you understand?

I am not implying anything. I have studied science and I have noticed anomalies, although I am neither the first one nor the only one. There are many prominent members of our society who have the same questions as well. I just want scientific explanations, preferably from the conservatives, to explain away these anomalies.

I have put some numbers out there based on calculations. Any explanation without adequate calculation will be deemed invalid. Science is all about numbers. So cut out the crap.

Leogirl, you don't seem to have any understanding of science and I will not grace your uneducated response with a comment, except that I didn't skip science classes, I have an engineering degree. Thanks for asking.

Danny, the time calculated for an object to fall a certain distance has little to do with its mass, size or shape, unless the drag caused by air is comparable to the weight of the body (terminal velocity case). And you also didn't get the last question it seems. There was NO resultant force to start with that can move something upward. You cannot create something from nothing. If things moved upward, WHAT created that force? Do you know the meaning of RESULTANT.

I will not comment on any more answers. Please, if you don't have a basic understanding of science, don't try to answer my question.

Answer 1

The most difficult of those to resolve scientifically is the free-fall rate.

It's as if there were no resistance at all for each of the floors beneath the first one to collapse, which makes NO sense.

Also, what force caused steel girders to fly out laterally from the buildings sides, some for about 300 feet?

I hope someone compares the smoke plumes which appeared on the videotapes to blueprints of the World Trade Center Towers.

Would they match locations for controlled demolition points if a contractor had to pull them?

Oh and Leogirl, the type of fuel used by airplanes burns about 1000 degrees cooler than the temperature required to melt steel, so why don't you get the second grade education you advocate, dummy?

Answer 2

You're not providing scientific reasoning to begin with. I am not a complete expert, so I'll have to answer your questions in snippets.

1. The plane that slammed into the Pentagon was not a direct hit. The plane was not flying level at the Pentagon, it was angled downward. So it slammed into the Pentagon and the ground almost simultaneously, the ground helping to stop the plane. In fact, the left wing of the aircraft struck the ground before the plane even hit the Pentagon. Thus, the ground helped dissipate the force.

2. I don't know enough physics to even accept your numbers. But I can tell you that your numbers omit that the building wasn't just pancaking, it was also collapsing because the extreme heat (caused by all the flammable materials in the building, not just the jet fuel) was causing the load-bearing steel to buckle and warp (not melt). So although I don't have the exact physics numbers, I can tell you that your physics numbers don't apply to this specific situation, at least not without some adjustment.

3. Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy.

If you put baby powder in your right hand and then slam your left hand down upon it, does all the baby powder immediately head earthward? Following your weird definition of gravity, nothing would ever head in any other direction. When two cars crash, does all the debris zoom straight to the ground? Following your theory of gravity, bullets can't fly through the air. Once they leave the barrel, they should plummet to the ground. Of all the conspiracy theory points, this is the one that drives me nuts because it's not even close to sensible, let alone scientifically valid.

Anyway, agree or disagree, I hope you find that I've tried to answer your questions using fact and by not yelling insults at you.

Answer 3

These are all educated guesses, I have no way of confirming the original assumptions used.

1. How can the speeds be confirmed exactly? More important then the physical qualities of concrete and steel versus glass and steel (and I don't quite understand that, since there is concrete in the WTC also), is the quantity of material struck during impact that acts upon the airplane.

2. Force=mass*gravity, the mass of the materials of the collapsing floors is greater then the mass of your free falling object possibly.

3. Air pressure develops as open spaces are suddenly constricted. In some cases this pressure build up may cause certain materials, once freed, to projectile forward from their point or origin (think of firing a gun for example).

Answer 4

While it is true the towers were engineered to withstand an impact of that type, what they did NOT count on was the aircraft full of fuel. That is why the steel melted and the building collapsed. So this should handle one and two.
Three.......gravity........put a Kleenex on your desk, then clap your hands next to it......the Kleenex moves.....because you are forcing air out from between your hands. When smoke rises it also causes an up draft. When the towers collapsed yes the stuff would fly out the side and some items would get caught in the up draft.
Did you skip all you basic science classes?
Sorry....No conspiracy here.....anyone with a 2nd grade education can explain this.

Answer 5

1. I fail to see the anomalie in this one, your speeds and distances are pratically the same in both instances, and you cannot make any assumptions based on merely wheight,speed, and distance. This is not a physics problem, there are an infinate amount of variables to consider: trajectory angle, acceleration due to gravity, point of impact, internal materials of the buildings, etc.
2. The towers did not collapse soley due to your "pancaking theory" they were severly damaged structurally, and as the building collapses more weight, force, and acceleration are applied as is falls.
3. I'm not even going to touch this one, anyone with a little common sense understands the force of an explosion/skyscraper falling can create forces strong enough to overcome the force of gravity. Had you told me that the projectiles floated upwards or hovered in the air I might question the reality of the situation, but I struggle to see the mystery behind your questions.
I'm not sure what you are implying or if you even know yourself. But your questions/theories are asenine and uncredited.

Answer 6

an air craft is made of light materials that are easily torn to pieces just look at all the wreakage of plane crashes on record . several planes have hit the sides of mountains and debris no bigger then a table top are left behind .A steel and concrete structure such as the twin towers shredded the plane on impact at those speeds .
A slower impact speed would have done more damage .air turbulance is felt by passengers all the time now imagine a colum of air under pressure with no place to go .ITS like a speed boat being torn apart in water .hifger speed leads to more distruction so it is easy to see the planes practicaly evoporate on impact with the steal re-inforced buidings.LIKE in final destination 2 the guy riped apart by the barbed wire is the same thing that happened to the plane on impact.shereded where it stood by an object wit much greater density then the plane .you have seen a pachinco machine and all the parts of the plane where riped apart as the bounced of steel and concrete with no clear path through the building absorbad by furniture and soft materials .
lets just addmit you have no clue what you are talking about .
IF you look closely the towers did pancake down from the top they did not pankacke on the bottom as in controled demolitions where the whole building falls at once slowed down frame for frame the buildings colapase on floor down to the next not as whole or from the base and the exploshions you see of windows bursting below are caused from pressure escaping as the floors above compressed the volume of air and when that volume reach high enough pressure the glass gave way and as the air rushed out looked like an explosion but in faact is not from a blast but pressure .
YOU are forgeting the upper floors all began to colapse at the point of impact and not from the top down as the inner structure began to fall you did not begin the clock with this but rather the visible outside colapse if you watch the tower on the tower begins to drop first and then the exterior structure begins to fail .

Answer 7

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ There is a lot of great, scientific data here, all peer reviewed.
Farly the Seer, not to pick on you, but I know that the official story says the plane came in at an angle, yet the holes in the rings are punched through from a direct hit.
Also, there are those who say it was all the fuel and fire that brought the buildings down. How, then, did this woman survive standing in the VERY hole that the plane created? http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm

Answer 8

Strange how the laws of physics were broken on 9/11, isn't it?

Science and the government's explanation of what happened that day are at odds with each other. There is a million dollar reward for anyone who can show how the official explanation can be validated.

It will never be collected.....

Answer 9

1. So you're saying a missle hit the Pentagon???
2 & 3 . You imply that possibly the WTC was set with detonators.

Answer 10

I think the Democrats set explosives in the towers to make Bush look bad.