Do you want me to shut up about 9/11?

Question

If yes, then prove to me that:

1) A steel framed building can completely collapse at free fall speed without the use of explosives.

-----AND-----

2) A simple gravitational collapse can cause thousands of tons of concrete and glass to pulverize into fine dust in mid air.

OTHERWISE, I WILL NOT SHUT UP.

.......

@ Psychede...: The tinsel strength of steel would have to be zero and its mass (as well as the mass of concrete, glass and everything else found in an office building) would have to equal that of air in order for a steel framed building to collapse at free fall speed without the use of explosives. IT’S CALLED THE LAW OF GRAVITY AND THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM. LOOK IT UP.

@ John, Dylan et al.... I'm not talking about the events leading up to or causing the collapse. I'm talking about the collapse itself.

Neeno, I'm not proving anything. I'm asking YOU to prove something.....Something that, as far as I know, has never been proven, yet the government claims happened on 9/11/01.

Truthkiller, I’m sure I would not provide much resistance to 10 tons of collapsing building. However the 100 tons of steel building below the collapse point could and should have put up MUCH resistance and slowed down the freefall considerably…… But it didn’t.

JustTheFacts, you link doesn't work.

No, Dylan, YOU have no idea what I’m talking about.

Those buildings came down at free fall speed. The Government said that explosives were not used. My question is HOW…. HOW did those buildings collapse at freefall speed without the use of explosives?

If you watch the video of the collapsing towers, you will see thousands of tons of concrete and glass spontaneously pulverize into fine dust in mid air. The govenment says that the towewers were brought down by gravity alone. My question is HOW…. HOW did a non-explosive gravitational collapse cause thousands of tons of concrete and glass to spontaneously pulverize into fine dust in mid air?

Where’s the “speculation” in my question, Dylan? If you believe the government’s story, then surely you must know the answer to my questions, Dylan….HOW?
..........

Vegaswoman, stop responding to my questions if you can’t answer them. Your fantasy about me being other women was once amusing, now it’s just annoying.
.......

LeAnn, I’m not asking you what some article you read may or may not have read said. I’m asking how the buildings collapsed at freefall speed without the use of explosives. And yes, the buildings DID collapse at free fall speed, as is confirmed by video, 3 separate seismic readings and the 9/11 commission report itself.
........

Answer 1

Never stop talking about this topic. This should not go away until the people responsible are brought down in flames and hanged for treason.

Answer 2

The proof you seek is in the "proof" offered by your cohorts as to why explosives just had to be used.

Incidentally, in order to offer no resistance to the fall, explosives would necessarily have to be placed on every single lower level floor in such a way as to be detonated at exactly the right sequence and capable of totally destroying the structual steel at the exact moment of the upper floor impact. Not very likely.

I recently read an article that mathematically calculated that free fall from the height of the WTC would be 6 seconds. The author than went on to say that the actual fall time for the building was 6.5 seconds (his source for this figure: Steven Jones.) He went on to explain that if all of the resistance from the lower floors were removed, it would take the building approx. 8.3 seconds to collapse. He then performed all of the necessary "math" to confirm this. I emailed him and simply asked why the free fall of the building with his premise of no resistance from the lower floors would take almost 30% longer than his previously stated free fall from that same height?
I am still waiting for a reply - apparently, he didn't think anyone would check his self-serving, essoteric, mathmatical calculations out.
The official bipartisan report stands on its own - the burden of proof lies with anyone who disputes it, and over 5 years and countless theories later, the contridictory "proof" has been debunked so many times that its hard to believe that there are still people who are buying into these theories. There has not been one iota of valid and verifiable proof offered to support your contention - and that's the reason none of this "proof" is published in a scientific venue where it can be reviewed by credible phyisists, scientists and engineers. It is instead published on web sites, ob-blogs and fictional "documentaries" - this "proof" is meant for people who get lost in the math and esoteric engineering terms and conclude that it must be correct because of the credentials of the author. It cannot stand up to any real scrutiny by credible experts - it never has and never will.
There, now own up to your promise and shut up.

Reply:
Please check this out:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_collapse_time_estimates.html

As far as the concrete turning to dust, perhaps the instantaneous impact of almost a half a million tons of skyscraper might help explain this.
And then there's the heat - hell, on a much smaller scale, I've accidentally "exploded" concrete with a propane torch. Don't try it, the concrete fragments and particles shatter and fly every which way (think popcorn, only much more forceful).
I've also pulverized concrete steps and walk ways with a sludge hammer - and I look like Casper the Friendly Ghost when I'm finished due to the fine white dust. And that's just a miniscule example compared to a collapsing sky scraper.
"Simple" gravitational collapse - we're talking a half a million tons here, and that's a lot of potential energy. The North tower was hit between the 94 and 98 floors, and that's a lot of height - the North tower, for instance, stood 1,368 feet. That's more than a quarter of a mile straight up!
Yes, the glass and concrete you allude to didn't stand a prayer in hell of doing anything but pulverizing from the energy and heat dissipated during the collapse.
Now will you be quiet about 9/11 theories? Please?

Answer 3

Well, I have seen people post over and over FACTS that disprove your theories yet you continue to ignore the FACTS and post your falsehoods. You site websites and videos that blatently ignore the facts or show modified videos or cropped photos. Quotes are taken out of context or even fabricated. The math used uses impossible assumptions that fit your theories. I will not go through it all again, go back and reread all the proof you have been given. The biggest fallacy is your freefall speed theory what a joke.

I guess that means you should shut up, because you have been proven wrong.

EDIT: You have been given proof over and over again, if you decide to ingore the facts, which you obviously have up to this point, then there is no way anyone can help you understand.

Maybe you should ask this question in the engineering section of Y/A it's more of an engineering question than a political question, but you haven't.
Why?
Might get more facts that you will ignore anyway?

Answer 4

Take a ten ton weight ..raise it 10 feet...stand under it and see if you can stop the "free fall speed"...same thing with the MASSIVE weight coming down on the floors below..It would also pulverize the concrete as it comes down ...but do not let science and facts get in the way

Nancy at it again with a new ID

Answer 5

You asked these questions earlier using your Ugly Betty screen name and, while I know it makes no difference to you, I answered your questions in full.

So, I guess this is another Bush-Bashing Internet HOAX brought to you by Ugly Betty/Stephanie/ Vato/Chick/Hippie/Sgt BMF/Brenda/Ginger/Skip/Skipper/Surfer Dude/Lori /*/ Boom/Jennifer/Jen/Lori/Luke F/Nick/Perry L/Citizen of the New World/Neo-con Flavored Kool-Aide/ladyofnyc/Susi Q/Patriot Smack/Toby/etc.

No facts + No credible sources = Hoax!

Keep Up The Good Work! You are a great American!

Wake Up America! Wake Up Before It Is To Late!

Answer 6

Explosions did bring down the buildings, two very large aircraft crashing into them.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, unless of course you have a degree in engineering, which I highly doubt. And the other thing is that we don't have to prove anything to you, you are the one that has to prove to us that the official story is wrong. And questions and speculation do not constitute proof.

Answer 7

Yes. The burden of proof has been on you and your multiple yahoo answer IDs. You failed to deliver. It would be nice if you would not violate the yahoo answer terms of service as you are now. Play by the rules or don't play. It's not rocket science.

This person asked and answered her own question. Ugly Betty is the asker.

Answer 8

your mind is closed therefore any attempt to enlighten you will fall of deaf ears.
My dad used to refer to people such as yourself as "talking like a man with a paper a$$hole" I never quite understood that until now.

Answer 9

Everything is far fetched but, what I could never believe is that the government could organize such a well executed plan.
NO WAY!!

Answer 10

No facts will ever impact you. You want to believe the US did this. I guess you hate this country.