View Full Forums : Extra ENERGY in 9/11 buildings: Tell the Teacher

06-28-2008, 12:30 PM

High school teacher-level Physics calculations show Gravity ACTION on 9/11 Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent ENERGY, and then
debris and dust erupted over 8.5 KiloTons of 'TNT' ENERGY in REACTION.

No spin, FACT:
0.1 KT ACTION not equal 8.5 KT REACTION

Who dunnit?

When the top chunk of Mt. St. Helens turned into a cloud of dust, thrown on the landscape, then TV and newspapers said the mountain expended the energy equivalent of 30,000 K Tons of TNT, (a Kilo Ton, or 'KT,' is 1000 tons, and TNT is energetic 'dynamite' force). I talked with the editor of the local newspaper recently, and he remembered publishing such a number back then.

How did they know that number? Were there conflicting opinions? Did TV and newspapers give 'equal time' for disagreement -- back then, May 18, 1980, the Fairness Doctrine still regulated broadcasting to air all sides, or arguable points of view, of any debateable issue -- was it 40,000 KT of TNT equivalent energy? Or 10,000 KT?

No, that's just silly talk. Certainly it was 30,000 KT, no argument, no debate. The number is not an 'opinion,' it's a calculation of a fact. Like an Example problem, perhaps in Physics homework. Multiply the massive weight of the rock times how far it flew against gravity's energy forcing it down to the ground; and so, weight times distance times gravity, is the energy number ... presto, the math is done, easy as pie.

The same calculation makes a fact that 8.5 KT of energy force expanded the dust cloud of pulverized concrete which came out of each Twin Tower on 9/11 and spread across Manhattan's buildings and streets an inch thick, or more.

Eight-point-five Kilo Tons, or 8.5 KT of expended energy, is the number which TV and newspapers do NOT say, because it's censored, prohibited, since there's a mystery about where that energy came from. Since zero-point-one Kilo Tons, or 0.1 KT, is all the energy that gravity had, forcing down on each building.

Gravity smacking the floors together, one-by-one flattening them like pancakes, all told, 110 floors pushed down into a stack on ground level, where gravity can't push any farther -- multiplying all the weight that came down the distance to the ground, and the fact is: 0.1 KT of TNT-equivalent energy was expended. That's all there possibly was. 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent energy. If a Tower weighed twice as much, there was 0.2 KT of energy in it. If it weighed twice as much being twice as tall, then 0.4 KT of energy was in it, at all times, stored there by the laborious work invested in building it, making it stand about 30 years against gravity pushing it down.

Whether the building is on fire or not, it weighs the same and stands as tall, until gravity -- not fire -- starts into action.

Same as if you have a book on the table, and you push it off the edge so it drops on a weight scale. When it hits the scale, it scores the same (energy) force of gravity pushing its fall, every time, whether or not the book is on fire. Instead of a book, if you use a balloon full of water, the force measured when it falls down on the scale is the same, every time, whether the water is liquid or solid ice. And, if you know how tall the table is, and you know the weight of the book or water balloon, you can calculate the pounds of force the scale is going to show under the falling object -- and have that answer before you push the weight off the table! It's not an "opinion," it's a calculation, in the facts of the matter.

Each 9/11 dust cloud measured 8.5 KT of (energy) force spreading out of the building. But only 0.1 KT of gravity pushed each building, straight down. Such 'Action-NOT equal-Reaction' was as if you dropped a 1 Ton book off the table and the scale measured 85 Tons hit it. The mystery of where the extra energy force came from, measured on 9/11, is an unsolved mystery.

The 9/11 Commission did not solve the mystery. Heck, the 9/11 Commission did not even Report the mystery, of 8.5 KT of TNT energy measured in the dust cloud expanding out of each Tower. Gagged silent Commissioners, like TV and newspapers. Was it only 8 KT, or 5 KT, of energy throwing the dust? The 9/11 Commissioners got paid taxpayer money to do the math, to calculate the Physics homework problem. Then they cashed our check and never did the math calculation. That's public fraud.

Heck, the 9/11 Commission never even reported anything about the third(!) skyscraper, turned into an expanding dust cloud on 9/11, (billowing out of the so-called Building 7 of the World Trade Center), nevermind not calculating the energy spread of Building 7's fall. The 9/11 Commissioners took our money, that our Congress gave them, and turned in a blank homework assignment. Nor did our missing Congress ever ask to see the missing math, either. TV and newspapers are now censored, and prohibited from telling the unsolved mystery number.

TV and newspapers have the factual calculation of the explosive-equivalent energy number, certainly -- the same place they got it from for Mt. St. Helens.

What TV and newspapers don't have, and what Congress doesn't have, and what the American taxpayers who paid for it don't have, is the answer to: What happened on 9/11?

The answer is sure NOT that a plane hit the building, it caught fire, and fell down, just as sure as 1 KT is NOT equal to 85 KT.

The mystery remains unsolved. What happened? And the 9/11 Commissioners committed fraud, which is a crime, cashing the check from Congress but then never producing the goods they were required to deliver on contract.

What happened on 9/11?, when 8.5 KiloTons of (energy) force came out of each Tower where gravity put only 0.1 KiloTons of (energy) force in each heavy tall building ... fire or no fire, because gravity makes buildings fall down, fire is innocent, weighs nothing, doesn't count.. Unless it exploded.

But how could (energetic) explosives get into the three skyscrapers, (particularly Building 7 where FBI and CIA offices were)? Was there a World Trade Center security guard watching? Did building Security keep records? Who owned the building Security Company? Oh, wait, that's not a mystery, that's in the public record of the business: Securacom, and its part-owner, on the board of directors is President Bush's brother, Marvin Bush.

At least, the 9/11 Commissioners can be charged with the crime of contract fraud, and perp-walked into Court, to do the math and answer to a judge. What happened on 9/11? Not crashing airplanes, since the buildings withstood that, (and Building 7 never got hit at all, yet it turned into dust). When we step back from the many non-counting details, shoved in our face for attention -- what floor the plane hit, which floor fell first, who went in to rescue people, how strong were the stairs, when did the fires burn out -- and mindfully look at the Big Picture from the point of view of a helicopter circling the scene, we calculate ALL of the parts ADDED UP in the whole building shebang, gave gravity force 0.1 KT of push-down energy, and we see gravity did it, and then we see recorded measurement shows that more than 85-times-too-much energy erupted a cloud up, in reaction to gravity's Big Push action.

Maybe Political Science can calculate how many more times the force of Law was broken erupting out of the 9/11 Commission pushing fraud on Congress. I can't calculate the political, I can calculate the physical sciences. The fact of the matter is 9/11 physics continues being an unsolved mystery problem.

I asked my friend, the editor, if his newspaper is going to publish the mystery I reported to him. He said 'the Democrats in Congress' should have first reported it to be published, before they got their anthrax letters from the CIA's germ warfare lab, and now he didn't want his newspaper to get an anthrax letter. So America's unsolved mystery goes on, unreported, as TV and newspapers are censored from saying.

What happened on 9/11?

[Answers in the back of the book, as usual, are here at this website: There, the calculation math is done for all to see and check for errors, including 9/11 Commissioners, and Congress, and TV and newspaper people. That website uses KWH units, or Kilo Watt Hours, like your electric bill, to calculate total 9/11 energies. Gravity Action on each Tower was about 140,000 KWH, and then over 10,000,000 KWH of energy erupted in Reaction. Above, my version calculates in terms of Kilo Tons of TNT-equivalent energy, which uses this translation:
1 KWH = 3.6 Mega Joules, (3,600,000 J.),
1000 KWH = 3.6 Giga Joules, (3,600,000,000 J.)
1 Ton TNT force = 4.185 GigaJoules, (4,185,000,000 J.),
and those two (1000 KWH and 1 Ton TNT) multiplied times 1000 to get to Kilo Tons leads to
1,000,000 KWH = 3600 GigaJ.
1000 Ton TNT = 1 KT = 4185 GigaJ.

So thereby, I took each 1,000,000 KWH in the website calculations, as 6/7 (six sevenths, as 3600 / 4200 GJ) of 1 KT of energy; which results in 10,000,000 KWH = 8.5 KT and 140,000 KWH = 0.120 KT ... and I rounded 0.12 KT down to 0.1 KT, but you can round it up to 0.2 KT, if you prefer, or even 0.5 KT and still have ten times more dust cloud mystery above what energy gravity could possibly put in it.
As far as that goes, the 8.5 KT of energy reaction, (10,000,000 KWH) from each Tower, uses rounded-down measurements, for conservative estimation -- explained at the website: -- so 8.5 KT is the least of it, and actual 9/11 energy released could possibly be ten times greater, 85 KT of TNT equivalent, or more.

Furthermore, the value cited for Mt. St. Helens being a "30,000 KT" eruption, is the number I recall and I did not look it up in old newspapers. TV and newspapers in 1980, definitely did issue some number, but in the use of it here only to make the point that a calculation CAN number the quantity of energy in a dust cloud, the firgured Mt. St. Helens number is arbitrary. However, my recall usually is accurate in such details, should anyone care to check to verify.]

So no one knows. An unsolved mystery. The airplanes did NOT do it.. Who dunnit? What happened on 9/11?

06-28-2008, 03:51 PM
Such great efforts to detail the energy sinks, and yet the author conveniently omits one of the most significant energy sources, the chemical energy of the fuel in the planes.

Here's a rough estimation of the energy content of one full tank:
90,770 L
0.8075 kg/L
42.8 MJ/kg^6+J+in+kilowatt+hours%3D&btnG=Search
0.2778 KWH/MJ

(90770 L)*(0.8075 kg/L)*(42.8 MJ/kg)*(0.2778 KWH/MJ) = 871500 KWH

06-28-2008, 05:02 PM
The fuel energy was expended at the time of impact. It would not be part of the equation.

06-28-2008, 05:56 PM
Expended as in converted to heat?

Now notice how almost all of the energy sinks consist of heating something: "vaporization of water", "heating of gasses", "heating of suspended concrete".

It would absolutely be part of the equation.

06-29-2008, 11:36 AM
The fuel energy was expended at the time of impact. It would not be part of the equation.
Physics 101 - Neither matter nor energy may be created or destroyed.

Matter can be converted into energy, energy can be converted into different types.

Matter does not just "disappear". The fuel had to go somewhere. Since it ignited, it was converted into energy and other matter (kerosene + oxygen to carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and heat and light).

06-29-2008, 11:55 AM
Actually, the biggest problem with the theory is why bother?

Assuming that someone ("The Government", which is meaningless, as over a million people work for the US government and they can't all be in on it) wanted to get everyone upset over a terrorist incident to seize power, then just crashing the planes into the towers would be enough.

There would be zero reason to take the risk of planting explosives. The idea that two fully loaded planes smashing into the Twin Towers, plus two more planes, one hitting the Pentagon and the other hitting a target in the Capital would not be enough to further their sinister plans is absurd.

Why would anyone think you needed more then that? Why would anyone be stupid enough to try to also smuggle explosives in?

It was not necessary to have the Towers collapse. Sure, it was a "bonus" for those involved but the plan would work just fine if they still stood. The massive damage and shock and deaths would be more then enough to get everyone upset and justify extreme measures.

06-29-2008, 12:05 PM
So thereby, I took each 1,000,000 KWH in the website calculations, as 6/7 (six sevenths, as 3600 / 4200 GJ) of 1 KT of energy; which results in 10,000,000 KWH = 8.5 KT and 140,000 KWH = 0.120 KT ... and I rounded 0.12 KT down to 0.1 KT, but you can round it up to 0.2 KT, if you prefer, or even 0.5 KT and still have ten times more dust cloud mystery above what energy gravity could possibly put in it.
Sounds very technical.

Still, did you add in the burning of the jet fuel, the burning of the hundreds of thousands (more likely millions) of pieces of paper, the furniture, carpets, walls, etc in the building?

Just the burning of the paper itself is a massive amount of heat and smoke and dust.

While I do not understand the calculations, I do know that any man made explosives that would be planted to bring down the Towers would be a billion times less power then the crashing down of the buildings to the ground, thus it would be impossible to find any evidence of explosives from the final dust cloud when the Towers fell.

When professionals take down buildings (and this happens all the time) they do not use hundreds of tonnes of explosives. They use relatively small amounts in key areas designed to cut the supports of the buildings. The clouds you see when they destroy buildings are, first, the small smoke clouds when the explosives are set off, and then second, the huge clouds when the building itself hits the ground. They let gravity do the work.

Your "evidence" fails the test of reality. While someone might have planted explosives in the Towers, the idea that the "dust cloud" of the Towers hitting the ground would be larger and throw off a measurable extra amount of debris totally flies in the face of science.

06-29-2008, 01:24 PM
Your heat and burning etc arguments prove you don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

06-29-2008, 02:19 PM
Your heat and burning etc arguments prove you don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
Well, if you do know, exactly how could a few hundred (or thousand) pounds of explosives cause enough of a dust cloud to be noticed above the millions of pounds of debris?

Sorry, but since you are the one putting forth the theory, you need to explain it.

Unless, of course, you have no interest in showing your side of the debate and just want to say, "I know it and you can't understand, so obviously I'm smart and I'm right on this and you are an idiot".

06-29-2008, 06:47 PM
The official explanation is a gravity driven collapse. No one anywhere ever says that collapse initiation was due to the fuel blowing up, not even NIST. Collapse initiation is said to be due to the weakening of the steel and failure of the supporting structure beneath that. The fuel was already burning for almost an hour at the time of collapse initiation. We are not looking at a fuel container being exploded causing the collapse. You are trying to say that you get an explosive release of energy from burning paper.

Then you proceed to use a bunch of big words trying to seem more intelligent and therefore I must be just a dumb twoofer.

Why don't I explain it? NIST and the 911 commission were supposed to do that, they got paid to do it. But they were really only trying to support the official explanation working backwards, which is not science. They simulated knocking the fire guard off beams by shooting it with a shot gun, then subjecting steel to temperatures far hotter and for far longer than what was possible.

911 Report


* The Report's Notes state: "the interior core of the [Twin Towers] was a hollow steel shaft, in which the elevators and stairwells were grouped." In fact, the core structures were composed of bundles of steel columns numbering 47 and having outside dimensions, in most cases, of 36 by 16 inches and 54 by 22 inches.
* The Report states that the "South Tower collapsed in ten seconds," when it actually took about 15 seconds. While one might expect that the Commission would overstate rather than understate the collapse time, the fact that the Commission did not even consider a collapse time within one second of the vacuum free-fall time of 9.2 seconds a problem for the official explanation is evidence that the Commission would endorse that explanation no matter what the facts.
* Regarding the failure to promptly move George W. Bush from the known location of the Sarasota classroom, the Report states that "No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing." Yet, according to evidence assembled by David Griffin, the Secret Service has open lines to the FAA, whose top operations people in the northeast corridor thought that as many as 11 planes had been hijacked. 2
* The Report states: "The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11." (The Report repeats the assertion three times.) Yet media reports, such as the USA Today article entitled "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" describe pre-9/11 NORAD drills involving hijacked jetliners crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 3
* The Report states: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states:

The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan. 4
* To address the charge that Saudi nationals were flown out of the country before the post-9/11 flight ban was lifted, the Report states: "we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001." In fact national airspace was only open to commercial airliners on a case-by-case basis on September 13, 2001. It was not until September 15th that the skies were opened to general aviation (privately owned aircraft). 5 Yet the Lear Jet that flew Saudi nationals from Tampa, FL to Lexington, KY on September 13th was a private plane. 6


* The Report notes that Hani Hanjour's pilot application was rejected, and that he was a "terrible pilot," on the one hand, but asserts that he was "operation's most experienced pilot," and piloted Flight 77 through a 330-degree spiral dive maneuver, on the other.
* The Report explains that the suicide terrorists chose not to target a nuclear power plant because they "thought a nuclear target would be difficult because the airspace around it was restricted, making reconnaissance flights impossible and increasing the likelihood that any plane would be shot down before impact." (p 245) It fails to apply the same logic to their targeting of the Pentagon, which, being the heart of the US military, is presumably even better defended than a nuclear power plant.
* The Report addresses the question of why George W. Bush remained in the publicly known location of the Sarasota school until 9:35 AM -- a half hour after the second Tower strike -- by relating that Bush "told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis," (p38) and that the Secret service "told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door." (p39) The Report implicitly accepts these explanations as satisfactory, thereby implying that for Bush to have taken any less than a half hour to leave the school would have required him to display an excited reaction and to "run out the door."
Source (

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.

Ex CIA and Marine Intel Officer (Robert David Steele ( 9/11 Was An Inside Job
""I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war (see my review of Jim Bamford’s “Pretext for War”), and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d’etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations (see my review of “Crossing the Rubicon” as well as “State of Denial”). Most fascinatingly, the author links Samuel Huntington, author of “Clash of Civilizations” with Leo Strauss, the connecting rod between Nazi fascists and the neo-cons."

28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job (Bill Christison (

"Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11
"After spending the better part of the last five years treating these theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the “official story” put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false."

"Christison initially approached the subject unwilling to even consider that elements of the government could be engaged in such heights of criminality but his research quickly began to change his mind. < Like you

"Just about half a year ago it dawned on me that not only was I trying to avoid an issue that might be extraordinarily important - more important than any other issue," said Christison.

"I have since decided least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen."

Christison stated that the suspicious collapse of the three buildings, including building 7 which wasn't hit by a plane, were likely the result of controlled demolitions.

"The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes."

"All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions."
Former German Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack (

"Former Helmut Schmidt cabinet member, 25-year German Parliamentarian and global intelligence expert Andreas Von Bülow says that the 9/11 attack was run by the highest levels of the US intelligence apparatus using WTC Building 7 as a command bunker which was later demolished in order to destroy the crime scene."

the list goes on here (

So at the end of the day what happens if the official story is wrong and it was an inside job? How does that effect your life? I can live with myself being wrong, but I'm not OK with saying nothing and being right.

I've looked at evidence and I can concede some of it may be explainable logically without criminal intervention. I'm even willing to say 50% but that still leaves the 50% that can only be explained by looking at all the evidence as a whole not just as mistakes and coincidences. The easiest explanation ('s_Razor) at this point is that it was an inside job.

06-30-2008, 10:04 AM
There was no magic bullet. There was noone on the grassy knoll.

Terrorists flew planes into buildings on 9/11, not the US Government.

06-30-2008, 07:51 PM
Terrorists trained and protected by the US government. They probably thought they were part of one of the many drills going on that day involving planed being used as weapons.

5 of the hijackers have turned up alive and most of them were Saudi.

Has the US used false flag terror in the past? -Yes

Have "they" been caught lying with information to support their war? - Yes

Has anyone within the administration profited from the "war on terror"? -Yes

Would you be in Guantanamo if you had as many ties to the Bin Laden family as GWB has? - Probably

Did the bush administration frustrate efforts to investigate 911 properly? Yes

President George W. Bush is obstructing the investigation of the 9-11 terrorist attack against the United States. Ever since the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also called the 9-11 Commission, had been set up to investigate the biggest crime of the twenty-first century, Bush and his administration have kept getting in its way. here (

How much money was dedicated to the 911 investigation? 3 million

How much money was spent investigating whether or not Bill Clinton had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky? 40 million

Has congress ever voted to declare war with Iran? - No
- Does that mean this war is illegal? - Yes

What about the $2.3 Trillion that went MISSING from the Pentagon before September 11, 2001? Did anyone even ask after 9/11?

What about the fact that WTC 1+2 were huge white elephants with low occupancy and would cost Billions to remove all of the asbestos, which meant they were not permitted to use controlled demolition on them. Conveniently Marvin Bush was in charge of security right up until September 10th. And then they lied about the air quality causing many more rescue workers to die from the toxic air.

What about multiple reports of explosions in the basements?

All I'm calling for is a new investigation. A real one.

07-02-2008, 09:05 PM
Swiftfox, you need to learn that less is more.

The more you post, the less I read. Why don't you try to discuss each point brought up with a short rebuttal about why you are right?

Again, I was talking about one thing I think you mentioned, which was that "the dust cloud when the Towers hit the ground was too large to be accounted for by the Towers without additional explosives involved".

Now, is that what you said or not?

If it is, then my reply stands. If I was seeking to bring down the Towers, knowing that someone was going to fly a fully loaded 767 traveling about 500 MPH with about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel into each Tower, I would then look at the supports of the building.

I would then, assuming I was a fully trained military explosives expert, look at the plans of the Towers and figure out which supports had to be cut to bring them down. Since I would have access to plenty of explosives (I assume) and plenty of time to set them, I would then plant what would be needed to erode the support of the buildings. I could use shaped charges and "tamping" to use the minimum amount of explosives, because that is the way I would be trained to do it.

This would not involve 500 tonnes of explosives. I would most likely involve perhaps 1,000 pounds or maybe 2,000 pounds, I really don't know exactly but I do know that when you bring down a building, you are cutting the supports and letting gravity do the work.

Such a tiny amount of explosives, compared to the millions of tonnes of building dropping to the ground from 100 stories up, would have a 0.000000000000001% difference in the amount of the dust cloud on the ground when it was all over.

That is a simple thing to understand. As I explained and as you can see by going to You Tube and viewing any planned destruction of a building. The smoke and dust and energy from the explosives is minuscule compared to that of the building hitting the ground. And the Twin Towers is 10,000 times more debris then any building you will see there.

07-02-2008, 10:49 PM
"Christison initially approached the subject unwilling to even consider that elements of the government could be engaged in such heights of criminality but his research quickly began to change his mind. < Like you

Do your own research.





07-02-2008, 11:01 PM

This video shows that many actual 9/11 witnesses heard and saw explosions going off inside the towers, long before they actually fell. These witnesses include police, firemen and mainstream media reporters

Araxx Darkroot
07-16-2008, 10:15 AM
Need to consider wind.
Wind can blow dust for miles, thus the dust created after the collapse of the towers could have travelled anywhere.
The manner in which the towers fell IS odd. It does seem like a controlled explosion, and there are small jettisons of dust as it collapses, perfectly vertical... Odd again.
Now, the alleged pilots appearing alive after the attack? I've heard this story also, but, ehm, where are they? Why isn't anyone talking to them now and their stories all over the news? I've not seen 1 single shot of them on the news or in the newspapers. And it would show a BIG blunder from the US government to be able to organise an attack of this magnitude yet not take out a handful of Arabs... Does not compute.

Granted, there are many odd things going on with the 9/11 attack, but after being skeptical for a long time I have come to the conclusion it is impossible to say at this point that the US govenment did do it. It would not be beyond them, though. During the Cold War the US was looking for an excuse to invade Cuba and thought of a plan of downing a passenger airliner saying it had been Cuba to give them that excuse... Sound familiar?

Oh, and /wave to those that remember me. Been a long time since I poked my ugly head around this place.

Araxx Darkroot
07-17-2008, 06:04 AM
Forgot to mention: Why did WTC #7 collapse? There's a youtube video of it going down in a perfectly controlled manner for no reason...
And why did the WHOLE two WTC towers collapse when the damage had only been done to the upper part of them?
Of all the buildings in the world those were the two ONLY towers to ever collapse after a fire. And they did so less than an hour after being hit.

Odd. /shrug

07-17-2008, 10:30 AM
Forgot to mention: Why did WTC #7 collapse? There's a youtube video of it going down in a perfectly controlled manner for no reason...
And why did the WHOLE two WTC towers collapse when the damage had only been done to the upper part of them?
Of all the buildings in the world those were the two ONLY towers to ever collapse after a fire. And they did so less than an hour after being hit.

Odd. /shrug

Step one: Build a house of cards
Step two: drop three cards on the house.
Odds are that the whole thing is going to collapse even though the weight added to it is insignificant.

In the case of the WTC buildings there was a fire on about three quarters of its height that was hot enough to weaken the steel support constructions inside their fireproofing protections (those are only garantueed for more ordinary fire temperatures and only up to a certain time). Also passing a plane through those floor must have ripped most of those protections away anyway (they are heat absorbent but generally very weak).

The fire burned more or less evenly in the floors affected so all steal construction was weakened fairly evenly as well.
When steel heats up it becomes more malleable, which at some point suddenly causes it to lose its structural strength (kind of like spaghetti that you put in a pan with boiling water). If that happens more or less evenly with all the support structures then the top floors will fall straight down, or at least straight enough that they will not begin to topple quickly.

What you then end up with is a mass the quarter of the buiding fairly suddenly dropping 4meters down on the lower floor. Even if the steel beams there are (still) strong enough to take the weight itself (they have to be or the building would have collapsed long ago), they can not automatically withstand the -shock- of all that weight being stopped. If they can not then the collapse is slowed somewhat but not stopped and the same weight plust that of the flattened floor now drops down another 4 meters. This then leads to a progressive collapse that follows the direction of the initial movement (as long as the top floors are not disintegrating more quickly than they are falling down). If it is vertical then it will keep going vertical and can be diverted aside only very slowly (and it becomes harder as the whole weight gains speed and mass).
The veritical puffs of smoke I am not certain, but when a floor collapses there is a lot of air and furniture in it that must go somewhere. The only way it can go is outside but exactly what direction it takes depends on the construction of the curtain wall and how it is destroyed by the falling floors above it. If the glass shatters near the ceiling first that is where you will see the air begin to escape.

Controlled demolitions work entirely different. The aim here is to let gravity do its work, so you want to place the explosives low in the building so you get the maximum amount of weight collapsing, while still being able to control the direction of the collapse so the whole thing ends where you want it. Timing here is critical which is why you see miles of ignition cable being looped inside the building so the time between explosions can be exactly right. You also want to shatter every column at the same time, which means that each of them has to be stripped of as much of its protection as possible (in the case of concrete), and you want to do that to every one of them (or you introduce unwanted directional effects as part of the building starts to move down while other parts are still being held upright by their structure and will only start to collapse after more explosions or when the momentum of the collapse shatters the remaining structures). In the case of I-beam steel core in the concrete columns demolition is even more tricky as you need a specially shaped charge to cut through the steal beams but you can not remove the concrate covering without potentially fatally weaking the strength of the entire structure, and the directional explosion tends to get deflected while shattering the concrete and may fail to cut through the steal. If that happens you end up with a building that is still upright but that can collapse at any moment.

It is exceedingly unlikely that people would not have noticed the heavy drilling and the support structures being laid bare to their reinforcements, not to mention what looks like miles of fiberoptic cable looped around columns on a floor in both buildings. In a building the size of the WTC it is a job that takes weeks to prepare it for demolition.
Also, images show that when the collapse started the lower three quarter was unaffected. A controlled demolition would have started with windows blowing out much lower in the building and the whole falling down, collapsing in on itself. The odds that the hijackers managed not only to hit a floor that was prepared for demolition while flying at 400 or so km/h but also managed to do so without ripping out the ignition cables from those explosives (and thus making it impossible to set them off) are smaller than you or I winning the national lottery three times in a row.