One real question though that that vid brought up that i have never had answered is how did it fall at free-fall speed? From where I sit, the top of the building couldnt have got to gorund level that fast. The building below which it wouldve had to plough through wouldve offered up resistance, and thus slow it down significantly from free-fall speed.
first off all nice post, you hit some valid questions that i didn't cover, mostly for reasons as i'm about to explain, most people don't think this far into analogies. the problem with analogies is that generaly speaking they help to simplify the situation to make things easier to understand. unfortunatley the simplistic nature of the analogy makes reading into it a bit hard to go much further with.
secondly no need to apologise, i get a bit vicious about things i feel strongly about. everyone here is guilty of reading page 1 and replying to something without reading the rest of the thread. in your defense this thread is moving fast and has some lengthy posts.
ok on to the issues...
as far as the free fall question this is a perfect example of the type of misinformation i refer to concerning these "documentaries". as far as the math involved i'd like to see the #'s of the real time moment of collapse to the moment of surface level contact. this seems to be rather impossible due to the tremendous dust cloud that enveloped the entire area. how anyone can determine the exact time the top of the building made contact with the ground level is hard to believe. the point is when a video says look how the tower falls as if it were free falling, then shows the clip, to the viewer it will appear that way because the suggestion is planted by the film maker.
all that aside i dissaree that the building would have slowed at all for reasons i am about to explain.
Also, my point about the building topling more sideways was never answered in your post. Here is an ellaboration on what I was talking about:
In your lage post back on page one, you segment the building into 3 parts - the top and bottom which were largely undamaged, and the impact zone which was shredded. Now, lets lable them A, B and C for convineance (top, damaged and bottom respectivly). If section B was suddenly removed, section A would fall, crashing into section C, correct? But as both A and C were largely undamaged upto this point, section C would have near to the supporting strength it had on any other day when it wasnt being attacted by some unenlightened freaks in focks living in a tin-pot country that noone cares about.
partially correct, but this is where the analogy hurts itself.
the analogy works well to illustrate the idea that B is supporting A and once B cannot support A it fails sending A through B into C (lol...that was so confusing). however this is an incredibly simplistic way to view the collapse and it has uses, but has it's limitations. the limitations being accounting for the supporting factors of the skin, and how it played a key role in tying the structure together.
so short awnser now, better awnser below....C looses all of it's integrity as soon as B fails and forces the skin to peel open like a bannanna. as soon as B fails A and the remains of B plunge downward causing C to open up like a drunk cheerleader on prom night.
Now, dont get me wrong - im not about to claim that section C would completly withstand the impact from section A, leaving section A sitting neatly on top of section C with no further damage, because that is just rediculous. Section C may near as damnit have enough strength to support section A's mass, but add in section A's velocity you thus create momentum and so section C is suddenly in alot of trouble. HOWEVER, if section A had enough momentum to smash through section C, and both were of about the same structual integraty, surely section A would sustain an equal amount of damage from C? Thus, wouldnt it be logical to conclude that only a portion of section C (approx equal to the size of section A) would be totally demolished? You could factor in the dust/rubble, but even then it would only be another small faction of section C (think - if you throw dust and gravel at a wall, the wall doesnt collapse does it?)
key segment is highlighted
thats the problem with that analogy, yes whiel the building stood A and C were basicly undamaged, the analogy stops being applicable once B fails.
the WTC towers were built utilizing a hollow outer core (the skin) that was tied to the inner support poles via the horizontal zig zag trusses. remove thoes trusses and you have no rigidity in the vertical supports, remove ether of the vertical supports and you have no horizontal support, again leading to the loss of vertical support.
thats kinda confusing...
ok the skin, ZZ trusses, and the inner core suppots work in conjunction with one another. they all depend on each other to function properly. by removing any one of these you loose the other two.
there thats easier to say and read...
ok anyway B fails, A and B begin to fall exerting tremendous force on C which isin huge trouble to begin with as soon as A and B are compromised. without the complete vertical support (and hat trusses above that tie it all together) of the complete system A+B+C the outer skin and inner core supports now have no vertical redistribution properties. they cannot redistribut weight to one another. A and B slam into C and without any support C fails as soon as B fails.
the only "solid" box in this whole scenario is A which gets pummeled apart on the way down. but B and C fail basicly in unison due to C's inability to remain intact the moment the system was no longer complete.
the skin folds up, the trusses fall out, the core fails, thus offering little to no resistance, far far from anything that would be noticable to the viewer, especially after being exposed to suggestions that prey on political hatreds and fears.
Second point of this: As section C would put up substantial resistance, and as obviously the point of impact between sections A and C are uneaven, it would make more sense for section A to do some damage to the upper parts of section C, which would in turn slow down section A's velocity eventually bringing it to a stop (if we were to suppose for a second that section A was undestroyable) and then section A would simply "topple off", rather than run straight down the center of C. A bit simplified I know, but the point is as A hit C, it would run through C for a bit, but then fall over as the resistance put forward by C became too large, and so A would opt for the easier route of falling off the side. The only way this wouldnt happen is if the collision surface was dead on, but as the planes obviously didnt hit B from every angle simaltaneously with identical effects, its obvious that one side would be weaker than the others, and that would be the preference to the topple. But perhaps it was some unexplainable random effect (bit far fetched imo to have 2 of those same random events occur right next to eachother at the same time on the same day mind you...), but even then, the first idea that i explained before would then apply, so either way I cant see how the towers could possibly have been destroyed by the planes alone.
ok i basicly just covered this, but i'll retouch.
at this point i've explianed that C basicly no longer existed as the buildings fell. so this part is now invalid to the argument. C provides no signifigant resistance to A. therefore A is allowed to fall straight through C. no randomness no odd occurances, just simple bad engineering as far as this particular "worst case scenario" goes. massive fire and structual damage to the mid section was the achilles heel of this design.
I hope that all makes sense, and it would be great if you could offer up some explanation. Again, I appologise for my previous post. I have a very open mind and all I want to find is the truth. I dont like Bush much, but even I am sceptical that he would do something like this just for an excuse to go to war (although I can also see it could be possible). I have seen videos like loose change, and they made sense. Your post back on P1 did however bring up the very valid "propagander" point of these videos - you can convince anyone of anything if you phrase things the right way and chop the evidence in the right order. As a consequence tho, Im sure you will understand if I take your own arguments here with an equal pinch of salt
In this day and age, you just dont know who to trust
lol i can assure you if i worked for some disinformation pro government section of the conspiracy i would not be theone calling bullshit on the government for thier stance on marijuana. check "the weed thread" in general discussion if you need reasurance that i choose what i do and do not support about my government with an equal grain of salt.
but joking aside this is a good discussion, i hope you post anything else you can think of that bothers you about that horrible day and what things involved don't add up. i enjoy this stuff....mabey something is wrong with me?
Just jumping in quick here
I know steal loses strength and such, but would the top of the tower fall to the side instead of straight down? The tower was hit from one side.
And could someone link the answers to loose change, I need to show that to a friend.
BTW-I am skeptical about the truth and the theory, though the way most of the theories are presented are sort of, not convincing.
see above, just covered why it fell straight down.