911, Conspiracy or Terrorist attack.

That's of no relevance. The stated cause of collapse is fire. This is the first time in recorded history that fire has caused steel framed buildings to collapse.

Obviously all the physical evidence that points to CD including molten steel, unburnt explosive chips, freefall collapse, wtc7 make the case in combination with the correlations in visual appearance.

This is really an appeal to consequence. I wouldn't even bother with the motive when empirical evidence is so strong.

This is really a type of ad hominem.

Basically: what does this have to do with the case at hand?

Even if that one aspect of newtonian physics proves to be incorrect, it would have no relevance to this case.

What? The bin laden family is essentially government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden_family

Both conspiracy theories, official and unofficial are the same in this respect.

These are evidence of explosives. There are thousands of hours of video and testimony that people heard explosions. People in the basements had their legs broken from the explosive impulse. Massive 50 ton pieces of steel and concrete were laterally flung hundreds of meters.

The energy to do this sort of damage cannot originate from fire. It's physically inconceivable.

 

Frankly ridiculous. You can clearly observe freefall acceleration in all three tower collapses.

Oh I forgot, it comes from gravity. Heaven knows the entire purpose of the building is to withstand gravity.

Before I waste my time debating this again, is there any source of research you would accept as valid that is not a government funded university?



Here's a happy little statement of the facts blurb:



As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

 

Totally brilliant. Acceleration is not velocity.

 

I feel there is no purpose in debating this further. You refuse to accept the burden of proof by appealing to ignorance, and your position originates with an appeal to consequence.

By your own admission NIST have presented a hypothetical physical mechanism, when perfectly sound physical mechanisms underlain by 300 years of experimental evidence explain in perfect detail how the collapse occurred and what the cause was.

From a purely Newtonian perspective, or even a thermodynamic perspective, the collapses, as they are stated to have happened, are perfectly impossible.

I'm not here to teach you classical physics. If you want a detailed recount of my arguments look up the previous 9/11 threads.

All I'll say on this topic is that the matter is self-evident. It is entirely clear from video footage alone what transpired. And, the two of us being unable to agree on what is featured in the video footage and seismic records, because of your denial of basic evidence, makes further debate impossible.

 

This is along the lines of one argument. There is also the path of most resistance (straight down), angular momentum imparted by the asymmetry of the damage to the building, and the lack of net energy gravitational or otherwise required to pulverize the entire building.

Not to mention the molten metal.

What is being mis-characterized here? You are basically assuming the building is made of glass, and as no give in it.

All the kinetic energy of the falling floors would be used up in the destruction of the floors immediately below the collapse zone. This would slow the falling mass (deceleration, not acceleration) after which point the asymmetry of the falling mass (lopsidedness) would cause the upper mass to topple and land in pieces in the street.

This physics is seriously simple stuff, and I encourage you to go out and build a matchstick or aluminum can analogue and see if you don't observe this effect.

Their own empirical tests of their hypothetical mechanism FAILED. They disproved the mechanism.

How much more clearly do you want me to state it?

 

That's not at all reasonable to assume. The purpose of the building below was to hold up the building above. The building below was undamaged. The walls of the building and the columns inside increase in strength and volume the further down the building you go.

I reject this outright.

It's iron. It's not even reasonable to doubt this. The quantity of steel in the building far outweigh the quantity of any other metal, and aluminum has none of those properties when it is molten.

There is no strawman here. Only your plain and deliberate ignorance to the facts of the case.

This was tested when NIST built a section of floor, put a fire in it and put a load on it. Their test failed to show their hypothetical mechanism in effect, even in a controlled environment. It has no reproducibility.

Further, the entire reason steel is used to build structures is that it is light and flexible. Skyscrapers are designed to withstand high wind speeds, and these particular ones were specifically designed to withstand plane impacts. There is no doubt here. You are just trying to inject unreasonable doubt to CORRUPTLY induce your position.

This isn't an assumption, its a clear and obvious fact. If the buildings had collasped immediately upon plane crash then you might have a point. But the buildings showed no signs of collapse, and collapsed from the top down, not the bottom up. You are essentially claiming something was failing to resist gravity... while it was resisting gravity. It's ridiculous.

It's irrelevant. There was acceleration when there should not have been. The falling mass was encountering no resistance.

That the buildings accelerated is not in question. Watch any collapse video, or look at the seismic data:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html



Your system starts at rest and has reached the ground by 10 seconds. And you assert that is not freefall acceleration? This is another unreasonable position.

There's no additional weight force added. The falling mass is the same as it always was. The two forces do not change, only the configuration of the upper mass changes. You've introduced a small amount of kinetic energy, and the completely obvious and reasonable physical consequence is for the lopsided upper mass to topple.

This is of no relevance to the proposed mechanism, and you know it.

You should be smarter than to hold this foolish position; injecting doubt into a case which is so easily and well made using the most basic of physical prinicples. The evidence is overwhelming. Rather than making a fool of yourself I suggest you go recheck your position by researching the otherside of the argument.

Start here: http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

In the case of these buildings the collapse was down the path of greatest resistance. The columns were vertical, and the building collapsed down not sideways as it should have done if the official story is to be believed.

YES. BECAUSE THIS EXACT MECHANISM WAS DISPROVEN IN THE EMPIRICAL TESTS.

How many times do I have to explain that to you?

Let me show this to you, since you do not believe me. Let me show you it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6Treadway.pdf

Here is the ridiculously overpowered "fire"'s results: