Attack on the "Twin Towers" terrorism or planned?

I've taken year 10 Physics. I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.
Is it:
- The building cannot fall from a upper story collapse.
- If the building fell under normal circumstances, it should have resistance, making the fall time less than free fall.

If it's the latter, I agree. I'm just not sure how F=MA is applied. I hate to repeat myself, but "I can hold a bowling bowl in my hand, it weighs a constant amount. Gravity pushes down on it at 9.8m/s and I can continue to hold it. Lift the bowling ball a mere... 10 feet, and there's no way in hell I can catch it, even though those factors are static." It appears the real matter here is kinetic energy.

See PM.

These document the hypothetical "explosions", and do not better account for the fall time than the visual evidence. They can accurately say when the building collapse, but not how long it took. It's a different theory altogether, with different alternate explanations which can be found here http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5.

Scientific method: Research, Hypothesis, Conduct Experiment, Analyze, Conclude

The hypothesis and research are there, the experimental data is lacking.

 

It was a typo, copy and pasted twice.

So is F=MA, which refers to net, not local force.

Inherently misleading. The real comparison should be the falling mass compared to the floor below it.

Obviously not; a plane crashed, shifting materials and setting a fire, compromising structural integrity.

The height is irrelevant - if one floor collapses, the one above it will fall. What's really important here is the amount of kinetic energy.

If I lift a weight, I give it potential energy. When I drop the weight, KE is released. Just because the air acts as resistance it doesn't mean the weight won't fall, or even increase in speed. This should be a quantitative argument.

Gravity certainly replenishes the KE.

Which it did. Your "seismic" data did not accurately detail the duration of collapse(and yes I did read the links).

Quantitative physics should be applied here, which take into account the strength of the cores. Anything else is speculation.

The articles on both sides seem to share the same common problem "data made to fit hypothesis". When data does not fit, omit. I made my decision based on my belief that the conspirators have the burden of proof.

 

What? The towers fell at free-fall speed. There was no resistance whatsoever.

 

Loose Change counter-thesis:http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
The theories for the case of the U.S. Government planning it are very well-argued, but in the end they are bullshit.
Every theory has been debunked so far by on party or another, I thought it was a false flag by the U.S. government before my friend showed me both sides of the argument. (I've read and viewed a lot for and against from many different parties).
I'd be interested to see new arguments for the false flag theory, however, I'll have to read this thread over and watch some more videos.

 

I personally believe it was terrorism.

 

Of course it was terrorism. But terrorism by whom? The government or brown-skinned civilians in sandals?

 

Have you considered that the "fall" here was misrepresented? That the building can continue to collapse even amidst a large cloud of dust?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpSq0YqPf6E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

 

It was planned terrorism. The impact of the plane and the intense heat was enough to melt steel. The gravity from the impacted portions of the tower was enough for it to collapse.

 

Not many people can say this,
I saw it.
My uncle has a brownstone in Manhattan 5-6 blocks away from the world trade center. We were up there for my sisters birthday 9-9-90 and when we heard screaming we went to the roofs to inspect. It was definatly a plane that hit it I saw it with my two eyes and that is one sight you will never want to see. The tower did go down awfully fast. But when you think of it. Wouldnt the weight of the plane cause the towers to collapse along with the flames? If not maybe there was something on the plane such as explosives or such that cause the towers to go down faster.

Btw. I live 15 mins outside washington near arlington and thats like 15 mins from pentagon. thats weird -.-

MY eyes beat youtube vids -__-