Pretty weak of you Hey tell you what: I'll give you $100 if you can make a physical model to replicate how the towers fell. Hell I'll give you $20 if you can even find a video of a physical model that does so.
Here I'm trying to give you free money and you won't even talk to me OK, so no one is ever going to find a video of a physical model on the entire internet. Well how about. . . . I'll give you 50 free dollars if you can do the calculations from high school physics, on a piece of paper, to show that twelve seconds is a reasonable time span for the building to fall. How about that? Fifty free dollars! In the meantime, please do tell more about the 19 guys of the conspiracy you mentioned, I mean the real one. What's the story you know so well?
Building fall rates... thermite rumors.... missile BS... distraction and irrelevant. Easily debunkable and meant to make those who buy it sound crazy and distract from the true smoking guns. What is important to note? The inaction of our leaders and the five dancing men of note who were filming the scene of the crime and celebrating. 9/11 was an inside job-- with outside help. All the more boring stuff like official testimony tells the actual story when looked at again.
How can we go to war with communist Vietnam? Let's say they shot at one of our ships. ... How can we go to war in the middle east? Let's destroy downtown New York.
Ah Gulf of Tonkin. But but conspiracy theorists!!!!!! Oh wait, that one turned out to be true. But never again right? :/
Well, yeah. I just said ignore the anti-physics arguments and the bunk and focus on the seemingly boring parts like official testimony, the actions/lack of actions taken that day, and the foreign agents recording and celebrating the collapse.
I watched that series of videos that tries to explain how 12 seconds is not possible with simple physics. There is one key assumptions that he made in the video that is not reasonable. The core of his argument is that it's impossible for the top 15 floors of the building to crash to the ground in 12 seconds given that the bottom floors will decelerate the top floors and slowing the fall down thus requiring at least 40ish seconds to fall to the ground. The faulty assumption is that that forces acting on the bottom floors appears only when the floor immediately above it is crushed. The structural members of a skyscrapers are all tied together via concrete and steel. The rate of kinetic energy transfer in solid material is the speed of sound of the material which in concrete is about 3km/s and 5-6km/s in steel. Imagine hitting an end of the steel rebar with a hammer on one end, when will you feel the vibration on the other end? The speed that energy moves is about 5km/s. So when the top floors of the tower falls on the bottom supporting members, the force of the fall is constantly being transferred to the floors below in the order of km/s, not free fall velocity. So as the top floor floor falls, the bottom floors can start to fail and buckle without having the top floors directly above to fail. The stress of gravity + the forces from the top floors buckling can be enough to cause the supporting structures to fail. Look at a Prince Rupert's Drop (PRD) . Just a small break at the tail of PRD will cause the whole thing to explode almost instantaneously even though the source of the destruction is still at the tip of the tail because the entire glass object is under internal tension and the propagation of the structural failure moves very fast in glass. The falling top floors of the tower causes the start of the structural failure,analogous to nicking the tail of the PRD, and gravity acting on the entire building is analogous to the internal tension of the PRD. So the range of reasonable time for the structure to collapse in the order of infinite time (the top structure does not cause the bottom structure to collapse), and free fall time (about 8.5s to fall 360m) assuming that the structural integrity of the building is destroyed when the top part of the building started to fail and kinetic energy propagated downward at speed of 3-5km/s (takes about 0.1s to traverse the entire building). 12 seconds is within this range and does not raise an eyebrow to me. If the tower had collapsed in under 8 seconds, then I'd be looking into other sources of energy input.
Also consider that the whole structure was already compromised when the planes hit. The energy of those collisions is ultimately transferred down through the structure to the foundation.
Gulf of Tonkin type things have undoubtedly happened since. The point is why destroy 2 towers full of Civilians, part of the Pentagon, and 4 planes of people, if we'll go to war over a fake battle with no casualties?
It changed the entire country... set the stage for the rise of the security state in addition to the endless war on terror and the road to persia. Not to mention it granted us access to a whole region for pipelines, resources, and a huge stake in the opiate industry. We are still living out its effects.
That sounds cool and all, but 1. what you describe is not how the towers fell 2. the towers were not like a Prince Rupert's Drop in any way, and that is a very dumb/disingenuous comparison. Since you know so much about structure, you understand fully that steel is not comparable to glass. And the towers did not have the shape of a PRD. And the towers were not solid bodies, but they were comprised of thousands of parts with joints, as you say yourself. So we'll dismiss your irrelevant mention of the "PRD" OK? Also you know that the towers essentially had a pyramid structure, with the girders at the bottom being about four times as thick as the girders at the top. It's really hard for pyramid-type stuff to collapse. You say the bottom was kinda vibrating and disintegrating as the top was coming down. You see any visual evidence of that? Or was that on the Prince Rupert Drop homepage too? Also, you personally never saw anything fall like the towers in your life. I know this about your life, for some reason. Also, you cannot make a model do that, even a model of glass. You sound super smart: I'll give you $100 if you can do it. You can't. Also, you cannot find a video on the entire internet that replicates what happened. (Hint: a PRD is not it.) Why did you compare the twin towers to a glass bead? It's dumb, Dude. No, seriously: hey Prince Rupert, I'll give you $500 if you can make a physical model that replicates how the towers fell. Poser.
I don't understand the physics. It's been too long since I studied mechanics and thermodynamics in college and regrettably I've forgotten virtually all of it. I suspect that the physics for a building collapse under these conditions are extremely complicated. I'll trust whatever the experts are saying on the physics of the collapse, if there appears to be consensus on it. As for who was responsible for planning it, if there is solid evidence implicating people within the US government with knowledge of the attacks then I've yet to have seen it. What is actually being alleged there?
