by Carlhole » Sat 16 Jun 2007, 03:41:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Geko45', 'T')here is nothing you can do to correct the false perceptions that these people use to convince themselves of this great conspiracy.
Yes there is.
Explaining how the Twin Tower collapses could NOT have violated the Law of Conservation of Momentum would be a good place to start.
You see, I believe that objects fall through air faster than they fall through immensely strong structural steel frameworks. Call me crazy but that's what I believe.
The buildings were observed to collapse (according to NIST and seismic records and many films) in 10 - 12 seconds. Freefall is 9.5 seconds.
It's been demonstrated that if the110 floors were magically hanging in mid air (without any vertical core columns or perimeter columns) and the 10-floor block began it's fall, the building would take about 15 - 20 seconds to collapse due to the Law of Conservation of Momentum alone. This is because each floor has a certain amount of stationary inertia that must be overcome as the falling mass impacts each floor. This stationary inertia slows down the total collapse time. It's elementary.
Now let's add back in the 47 immensely strong core columns and the 250 perimeter columns, all the solid structural framework, all the rivets and welds and whatnot that held the building together and upright, designed to support 2.5 times it's own weight.
Then, let the 10-floor block begin it's fall again. Now, not only do you have to overcome the static inertia of each floor, you have to have enough energy to overcome all the huge vertical supporting columns and tied-together steel-framework. since it takes energy to do this, it slows down the collapse time significantly even more! Without something removing the vertical integrity of the columns and underlying structure of the buildings, the buildings could never collapse in only 10-12 seconds.
Probably, without explosives, the buildings would not have collapsed at all. If the 10-floor block began it's fall, most likely it would suffer severe damage, damaging the structure it was falling onto also, then it would slip off to the side following the path of least resistance, or it would stop settling on top, or some combination.
Of course, once someone thinks about the above and comes to the conclusion that explosives simply MUST have been used to remove the strucural integrity of the buildings ahead of the collapse wave, then there is the problem of how did explosives become planted there?
But, if you decide that the military/government/industrial complex is too incompetent to pull off such an act. Then, you are back to the violation of the Law of Conservation of Momentum and the fact that the buildings could not have collapsed in the time that they did.
A reasonable person would, of course, check the NIST and 911 Commission Reports. However NIST and The 911 Commission did not provide any analysis of the Total Progressive Collapse (TPC) of the towers. This is odd since no TPC had ever occurred before in a fully constructed, established steel-framed skyscraper.
So what you need to do is to resolve anomalous building collapses in a rigorous scientific fashion. Becase at the heart of it, is not a desire to believe in conspiracy theories just for the hell of it - the heart of the matter is that the Tower collapses have not been explained.
Of course, WTC7 has not been explained either - that building's collapse was different than the towers and the questions are different - so that needs to be explained too. And there are a lot of other questions that were not explained in any of the reports.
But explaining the near freefall Tower collapses and the apparent violation of physics would go a long way.
So let's hear it. Give it your best shot. Or do you prefer to just keep hurling ad hominems around?
I guess it's easier to just call people names since that doesn't require much difficult thinking.