How did the world trade towers come down in little over 9 seconds if they were not brought down by explosions?

Question

Please. Try and answer this one intelligently instead of the same old idiotic (hide your head in the sand) mentality. I had a physics expert explain in detail for almost an hour how this is impossible. At free fall speed, the towers would come down in over 8 seconds. However, there would have been friction of over 70 floors slowing the fall. Add to this the numerous people on tape right after the attack (including firefighters and police) who spoke of numerous explosions inside the building minutes before the collapse. Folks, there is just no way of denying it. The laws of physics are what they are. Democrat, Republican, liberal or conservative--There is just too much evidence indicating that explosions brought down both towers, as well as buidling 7, which was not hit by planes. These looked in every way like controlled demolitions. Lets finally get an independent investigation of this, rather than the whitewash that was chaired by a former advisor to Condi Rice--hardly impartial!

Answer 1

The first break was caused on the floors where the airplane hit. After some time because of the impact and high temperature the structure broke at that level. This should have caused all the floors above to come and bump on the part of the structure below the point where the break happened. Having some idea about building structures I can tell you that a sudden impact of that size (about ten floors came crushing on top of the rest of the building) is much greater than any building could support. After that crash it is quite normal that the structure of the building broke in several different places (what people thought were explosions). After the first collapse the vibrations from so much stuff falling from that height should have been so great that it is surprising that there was not more damage.
I can see much sense in the idea that the whole thing was an inside job but I don't think that the way to prove it is by saying that there were explosives in the towers. The collapse could happened without explosives but that does not say anything about who organize the thing, who knew about it, etc.

Answer 2

WHERE do you gullible people get your "FACTS"?

The towers stood for nearly an hour, but once the inner supporting structures gave out, the rest of the building collapsed. It was slow at first but, if you watch the video' you can see that it quickly gained momentum.

I don't mind conspiracy theories... but this one is WAY off base. Just the electrical transformers alone would have exploded as the load side of the lines shorted and THAT would have been a VERY BIG explosion... have you ever even been around an electrical transformer the side of a Semi-trailer when it explodes?

I just can't buy the conspiracy theory on this one... the event itself was bad enough without the revisionist idiots trying to make a conspiracy out of it too.

Answer 3

the ingredient i discover maximum suspicious - extra so than the *seen* squib explosions; extra so than the workplaces being cleared out the weekend previous to the crumple; extra so than the memories of all of the firemen, policemen and witnesses (or maybe all of that in the process all fairness persuasive) - is that the BBC *reported* that WTC 7 had collapsed mutually because it became nonetheless standig interior the history. The stay satellite tv for pc feed very certainly vanished interior of a jiffy, and the BBC have considering the fact that claimed they have lost the tape of it - "through cock-up, no longer conspiracy." Is that even obtainable? fortuitously others stored it and uploaded it, so we are in a position to all see it for ourselves. loads of documetaries obtainable; loads of rebuttals and many scientists and chemical engineers on the two facets giving diametrically opposing critiques on an identical records... yet there is somewhat no rebuttal for the undeniable fact that the BBC knew it became gonna crumple, an entire 20 minutes formerly it did. it is the main damning piece of data, through fact it became so unintentional. it is like somebody mis-examine the memo, or possibly the ink on the fax have been given smudged, and that they made a enormous mistake by accident, panicked, then compounded it via attempting to conceal all of it up. So, yeah, i do no longer think of it is so straightforward as "Dubya is ebil and the gubmint doned it" yet imo they have been controlled demolitions.

Answer 4

Why don't you go to NYC and walk around expousing this hair-brained theory and see how long it takes for someone to beat the crap out of you. Are you a demolition expert? Are you a physicist? There's no question as to what happens on 9/11. Planes hit the towers, fuel burned and caused the collapse. Tower 7 burned for 10 hours and collapsed. Simple as that.

Answer 5

Let's see.. Some folks think the towers didn't happen like we saw. Others think Flight 93 is a hoax. Others think the plane that hit the Pentagon wasn't. My goodness. Who ever planned all these things to happen so it didn't look like they did that way, must be the smartest people that ever lived.

Must be the same folks that shot JFK, faked the moon landings and killed OJ's wife and Ron Goldman.

Answer 6

the towers came down because the burning jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the interior frame of the building. Building 7 came down because of the damage done to it from the towers collapsing

Answer 7

Tons of steel and concrete doesn't come down in slow motion.....of course it would come down fast, what planet do you live on?

Answer 8

extremely Fahrenheit...