There is a simple and overlooked reason why so little debris was left from the planes and why they were able to bring the Towers down despite the towers being designed to withstand such damage.
When the Towers were designed, the assumption was that any sort of aircraft collision would involve planes that were either landing or taking off from a nearby airport. Landings and takeoffs occur at speeds below 200MPH.
The planes that struck the Towers on 9-11 weren't going 200MPH. They were going over 550MPH, which was far beyond their designed maximum speed for such low altitudes, and a velocity which would soon have destroyed the airframes had they not hit the buildings first. At low altitudes, the atmospheric density is such that the wings will collapse at that speed. It could not possibly have been foreseen, or designed for, that fully loaded airliners would intentionally be flown into the Towers at nearly the speed of sound.
There is a big difference between 200 MPH and 550 MPH. A big difference.
Speed had NOTHING to do with the multiple reports and evidence of EXPLOSIONS in the basement, and on lower floors, as reported by fire captains and firemen after the impact of the planes.
There was NO way for jet fuel to travel downward to lower floors to ignite ANYTHING as the majority of fuel burned on impact.
Regardless, the towers were built to sustain such hits by jumbo jets and the one thing that is still a
mystery is WHY the towers fell at "FREE FALL" speed.
Its scientifically impossible for a building to fall at "FREE FALL" speed when one floor in falling onto another floor.
In order to fall at "FREE FALL" speed, every BOLT, WELD, WIRE, BRACKET, BRACE, CROSSBEAM and STEEL BEAMS would have to simultaneously FAIL on every single floor from the top to the bottom including the basement.
That has NEVER before in history occured in a steel frame building anywhere in the world due to a fire.
The 9/11 report stated that both buildings came down in under 10.1 seconds.
The problem with some people, is that "they" accept what they have been told about 9/11 because it is easier to accept than to question.
The following are excerpts:
The government and the media told us what we saw.
The government told us that we had witnessed a "gravitational collapse"; what is now referred to as a "pancake collapse". According to the government's, and PBS's, and Popular Mechanics', and Scientific American's theory, airplane crashes and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil; jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires heated UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was significantly weakened, which is already very difficult to believe, nevermind repeat in an experiment. According to their "pancake theory", this imagined purported (all the evidence was subsequently illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of lower floors, sequentially, one at a time, yielding to and becoming incorporated into a growing stack of floors falling from above.
There are some problems with that theory; it does not fit the observed facts: It cannot account for the total failure of the immense core columns, nor the 'disappearance' of that so-called "growing stack", nor the too-rapid-to-blame-it-all-on-gravity 'collapse' times, nor the huge energy surplus, nor the nanosizes of the 'dust' particles. This article focuses on the third of these mentioned discrepancies, and just scratches the surface of the fourth.
The scientists who've concocted the popularized "pancake theory" made a fatal error:
they forgot to check their work! Which is an easy thing to do, even without any physical evidence to forensically examine. Anyone, at any time, can check the work of the scientists -- that incredible pancake theory of theirs -- using simple, high-school physics!
And that's what we're about to do here. We're going to check the work -- something every grade-schooler is taught to do -- of those "scientists".
We will use a simple, unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a simple, basic reality check that establishes, once and for all, that the U.S. government, PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American have misrepresented the true nature of the events of 9/11.
SCIENCE
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)
Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity
Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.
But that can only occur in a vacuum.
Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (
source)
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
If there were NO bombs or "assistance" on lower floors not affected by fire, those floors would have offered resistance to the floors above as they came down SLOWING the fall of the floors above. 10.1 seconds would have been physically IMPOSSIBLE despite what we have been told by the 9/11 commission.
This was the greatest crime ever committed.
Conclusions
In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
- The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
- The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
- On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
- On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.
It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC "collapses" can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults:
the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.
The purported "gravitational collapse" (
video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.
The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.
What about building (7) ??
This building didnt get hit by an aircraft, didnt get hit by airplane debris, didnt have massive fires in it, YET, 12 hours after the first towers were hit and fell, this building falls down and most people dont even know it fell.
The real concern, is why Americans dont want to have a REAL discussion about 9/11? Why cant we question what happened on that day? Who was really behind it?
Why is it so hard to believe that something in conjunction with these hijackers from Saudi Arabia and funded by the Royal Family occured on that day?
And BEFORE anyone attempts to use POPULAR MECHANICS debunking video, do yourself a favor and dont. Those claims by PM have been debunked themselves.
Can we debate this subject without any partisan objections??
TOS.
