Nobody with an understanding of physics believes that the Twin Towers fell as a result of the 'plane impact?

Question

do they? No referals to other sites please.
I couldn't give a damn, much, although I have an opinion; I'm a spectator,but it looked like magic to me that they fell at freefall speed, no energy being diverted to other observed phenomena such as portions of the building going "up" as well as down.
There's a Noble prize waiting for someone who can explain this phenomenon, it's not in my gift, but I would lobby to nominate a sustainable hypothesis, and sure as hell you'd get it if you could explain. And a congressional medal probably.
ps. equal and opposites in free space considering gravity is something ruled out by my sixth graders.

Answer 1

It did not fall at freefall speed. Frame by frame measurement shows it is not, plus you can see some debris falling faster than building collapse. Look closer don't just glance and say 'oh that's demolition'. You're eye ball estimate isn't good enough. High rise building like that is balance between safety/weight/structural strength. Any sixth graders know that. You can reinforce it much as you can, but that makes it heavy and put too much stress on bottom and the building won't stand. So high skinny building like that will have minimum reinforcement toward top to reduce weight. That's why fire protection was weak, to save weight so it can stand without its foundation taking too much stress. They also don't do more fire protection than required by building code to save money too. Official investigation along with experts, engineers showed how the building failed. Metal beems supporting floors above crash sites snapped after bending for while, softened up by fire/heat. Light fire protection forms surrounding metal beems were blown away during crash. Once floors started to go it was chain reaction one after another. Plus it was not 'nice, neat' collapse as people claim. YOu can clearly see top part breaking/snapping off, leaning, falling, and disintegrating in mid air as it fell. So you look at one building and you're all the sudden physicist, building engineer, scientist, computer and all that?

Wheres the bang bang bang bang you hear at normal demolition before building go down? So called window blowing out was caused by air compression caused by floors collapsing. And theres just few example of this at lower floors. Remember tremendous air pressure winds that blew out debris out every where? You don't think that air pressure generated by massive building collapse can blow out windows?

So there were silent explosives every where in the building, they didn't gut the building like every demolition they do which takes more than month for smaller buildings? Don't tell me witness said there were bombs. People said things like 'I heard what sounded like bombs.' They didn't know what it was other loud bangs as floors began slamming each other. Some expected there will be bombs because they heard it was terror attack on TV and thought terrorists may come in with additional bombs/weapons.

Go on web and look at other demolitions and compare. Explosions comes first and than it goes down. Where were those bang bang bang... you hear in every demolition? Was it top secret silent explosives made by the government? All this is just ad/hoc pseudo science crap. At least read official explanation in full without just jumping to ad/hoc theories. It's unbelievable you think your eye ball estimate is superior than 'official' explanation.


The reason people can sell weight loss pills is because people like you are so gullible and believe things without any common sense. I nominate you for IgNobel. Look up IgNobel on web.

I wish I can do all that you just did with 'eye ball' estimate. That's brilliant.

Answer 2

The first thing you should understand about the aircraft that were used is that they had a modern control system that is called "fly- by-wire". Computers maintain level flight until you put pressure on the joystick or yoke. Microsoft Flight Simulator teaches you how to use the control systems in these aircraft. Even auto-pilot controls are covered in the manuel. The terrorists did indeed have one of these manuels and had obviously practiced on this program. The day it occured I speculated that they had done this and was proven correct. As for the fire, there is a lot of different material in a building like the World Trade Center. Not all the fire was burning in a single location. There would be different temperatures in different parts of the building so smoke would indedd be produced. To say all the fuel flashed off on impact simply isn't true. The fuel contributed greatly to the fire and the terrorists knew it would. Why do you think they chose planes that would be fully fueled? Steel doesn't need to be melting to fail. I have seen the results of simple building fires and steel distorts, bends, and cracks without melting. The weight of the structure above was basically dropped on the rest of the building when the few bolts that actually held the framing together failed.

Answer 3

The official explanation is that the impact of the aircraft severely damaged the fireproofing on the floors where the impacts occurred. As the jet fuel burned at some 1200 deg. centigrade, it severely weakened the steel structure at that point. You notice the collapse began at the floor where the planes hit, not below or above. Once the floors went and the 20-30 floors above them went it was too much weight for the floor below, and then the floor below that and so on and so on. It started a chain reaction. What is more mysterious to me is the statement by the owner of building 7 that they had to 'pull' it, a construction term for demolition. Also strange is how quickly the steel from the buildings was scrapped and sold to the Chinese. There were also video tapes of the plane hitting the pentagon which was immediately confiscated and recordings from the traffic controllers on that day were shredded and spread to multiple garbage cans. I'm not saying there is a covert plan being protected, but there certainly are a lot of unanswered questions. Personally, I think they are covering up massive incompetence.

Answer 4

"Nobody with an understanding of physics believes that the Twin Towers fell as a result of the 'plane impact?"

Correct. The towers collapsed only after the substructure was heated enough to weaken the support for the upper portions of the buildings.

Le Anne is right on the money!

Answer 5

"Nobody with an understanding of physics believes that the Twin Towers fell as a result of the 'plane impact?"

That statement is absolutely correct. And nobody with an understanding of physics has implied that.

If the "plane impact" was the cause, the towers would have collapsed immediately after the impact - they did not.
They collapsed only after the damaged substructure was heated sufficiently to weaken the support for the upper levels.

Answer 6

How many professional demolition firms have stopped bringing buildings down by setting multiple explosion points near the bottom; the buildings occasionally fail to collapse or they topple. Now, they "see" they could guarantee collapse, by placing the charges near the top.

Answer 7

WTC fell straight down because of the location of initial failures. Fireproofing came off of steel supporting members, and they failed. The floors below could not withstand the additional weight of stuff that fell on them. One would expect that the rate of collapse would increase as each floor collapsed, adding weight to the falling mass.

Answer 8

My only input to this is the following:

It seems VERY strange to me that an entire buil,ding would collapse in on itself as it did....in a 'telescoping' fashion.

Professional demolition experts have to take painstaking care to plant explosive charges at key locations in vacant structures so they fall on top of themselves as the twin towers did.

To say that I find the manner in which the twin towers collapsed extremely remote is an understatement....not just ONE, but BOTH.

Just so odd.

Jet fuel burns very, very fast...not HOT, but fast. Where do the intense heat come from? It couldn't come from a building; glass, metal. concrete.

???

Answer 9

what about thousands of gallons of plane fuel on impact to the core girders of the building? would that cause any explosion and ensuing structure damage?

you can't tell me it wouldn't have done something to it..... you can't prove it to me irregardless of what theory you come up with.







why rate an honest answer with a thumbs down???? oh well.... boo hoo..... yep, merry XMAS to you too

Answer 10

You are what PT Barnum was talking about when he said "there's a sucker born every minute."