why didnt the pancake collapse of the twin towers take longer? i thought  all resistance would slow a fall?
828602
What do you mean "surely"?  Where do you get that notion that this is a sure thing?\nBasically, the pancake collapse means that each floor above would come crashing down on the one below with enough force to instantaneously break its support, and then the falling debris gets increased by the weight of this new floor, making the lower floor less likely to resist collapse as you go down.\nAn 8% speed reduction is actually quite a lot.
710471
hmmm, good question....\n\nMaybe because it seems to be in a constant state of falling.
1127335
Some of what is presented in "loose change" can be disputed to the point of possibly being coincidental or hear say.\n\nBut there are also things that are pointed out in the film that cannot be disputed, as it would violate the laws of physics for them to have occurred in the way that our government has led us to believe.\n\nI have been doing research on both sides of this issue and there are several items that violate physics.\n\n1. No mater how structurally compromised the struck floors were, the towers could not have fallen at free fall speed. This can only occur when there is no support anywhere under the falling structure.\n\n2. You cannot take out multiple light poles on the way into the pentagon with out leaving massive amounts of debris in the path from the poles knocking chunks out of the plane much less the flaming fuel spill it would have produced. The Boeing fuel tests proved that a plane hitting even a single light pole would rip the wing off creating a huge fireball immediately. There was no debris or scorch marks anywhere other than the scorch marks at the building itself.\n\nThe laws of physics do not conveniently change for anyone no matter how much rhetoric that people spew. We will probably never know the truth about who was responsible, but we do know that the story our government has fed us doesn't hold water.
1166933
This video is very compelling evidence that there's a lot more to the events of 9/11 than most people know.  A few of the things in the Loose Change video are inaccurate, but it compiles enough accurate information to lead to further questions.  \n\nTo the people who say things like "this has all been disproven" or "it's just conspiracy theories" you are fooling yourselves.  The famous philospher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) said “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident”.  People will believe any lie either because they want it to be true, or because they fear it is true.  The lie you are believing is that the official story of how the events of 9/11 occurred are true.  When you OBJECTIVELY analysis the scientific evidence -- as a detective or scientist would -- without injecting false patriatism into the equation -- you realize that it is simply physically impossible that things happened as we've been led to believe.\nAnd  as a side note, questioning the events of 9/11 is NOT unpatriotic.  On the contrary, it's about the most patriotic thing you can do.  We have a duty to defend this great nation of ours against ALL threats, foriegn AND DOMESTIC.  And the families of the victims of 9/11 have a right to know the TRUTH of how and why their loved ones died.  In that spirit, I present the following very small bits of information concerning the events of 9/11.\n\nYou can’t collapse a skyscraper with jet fuel.\nMany engineers have come forward and said that there’s no way those buildings fell from fire.  Steel doesn’t weaken until almost 2000 degrees F, and it doesn’t melt until almost 3000 degrees F.  Jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to do it.\nThe official NIST report states “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)   The final NIST report on the Towers admits:  \n"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC."  (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177) \nKevin Ryan, the engineer from the company that underwrote the towers, said it was impossible that a jet fuel fire brought the towers down.  The architect who designed the twin towers has repeatedly said that he designed them to take not 1, but 2, massive passenger airliner impacts and not fall.  \nPools of molten steel were found in the basements of the towers (including tower 7) weeks after 9/11.  Steel melts at 2777 degrees F.  Jet fuel burns at only 1577 degrees F.  It is literally impossible for jet fuel fires to get hot enough to melt steel into molten pools.  Something else must have done it.\n\nFirefighters and survivors said repeatedly that bombs were going off throughout the towers, on many different floors. Firefighters gave very specific descriptions of seeing flashes of light and explosions going off on the lower levels.   If you watch the news from that morning, you'll even see Fox news reporting a "4th explosion" going off in tower 1.   For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox  News anchor reported:   “There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building!  Then another explosion.”\nFirefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:  \n“[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came
937910
I have screamed since 9/11 that we needed to look at those who gained from the attacks, just prior to the attack, the middle east was in chaos, Israel was in trouble with the UN and US public opinion was calling for sanctions in their attacking unarmed Palastinains, Bush was pushing for increased sanctions against Iraq, meanwhile bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the trade centers and security was cut back drastically. Much of the buildings colaspe does not make scientific sense if it was caused by the fire and inpact from the jets, steel does not melt at the temp that the fire heated to, buildings do not free fall when colasping only imploding caasues this. No engine or balck box was found in the pentegon! Too many unanswered questions and no real governement attempt to answer them
1078717
Yes, but not having a Boeing 747 crashed into them. They actually stood up for quite a long time with the fires and the structural weakening. No building is meant to withstand the magnitude of a crash from a Boeing 747 with a full tank of fuel. The steel inside should have actally expanded, but yet it stayed still long enough for most of the survivors to get out. I think the structural integrity weighs out the disaster. The twin towers weren't going to stay up forever, as with most skyscrapers they are very succeptable to the elemetns as well.
1100837
The question is interesting and one of the more plausible conspiracy theories, although the more we learn about what the passengers did on UA93 it is likely that it crashed as a result of the takeover attempt.\n\nOn some of the voice recordings one of the hi-jackers is saying "do it, put it down now" as the fight reached the cockpit.\n\nI have no doubt however that it was already being followed by fighters and that it would have been shot down before it reached a populated area.\n\nThat has NOTHING to do with Bush being ruthless, it is about a sensible response given what had just happened to the twin towers and the pentagon.\n\nI would expect any leader of any country to take similar action to prevent 200 tons of aircraft smashing into and killing up to 3000 people.\n\nIn the UK we know that the RAF has a standby flight ready at all times to take down any hi-jacked airliner on its way to do a similar thing in London, and it can be on station over the capital in minutes.\n\nIt would be the right thing to do.\n\nOh and by the way, Bush was'nt at the White House that day, and its not his property (he is a temporary resident) so it wasnt a personal danger to him or his property.
785092
In my honest opinion I wouldn't be surprised. Did you know that the american government knew about a possible attack on Pearl Harbor. They knew about it but did nothing. Why? Because they wanted to join the war, but the american people did not want to. So they needed a push, for war. What better push for war than having the enemy attack you on your soil. The one thing maked me believe that the government had something to do w/911, is that there was no plane wreckage or luggage or anything resembling a plane when it went down in the Pentagon and in Penn. Why?
647859
Neglecting all factors, including air resistance, you would fall faster and faster until you passed the center going really fast, and "fall" up to the surface on the other side of the Earth, slower and slower, until you stopped at the surface on the other side. To someone standing there it would seem as if you had been been thrown up from deep in the hole just hard enough to reach the surface. The time it would take to go through the Earth this way would be the same as the time it would take to complete half an orbit around the world, or about 45 minutes.
606294
If they were in the same place and time, 'same' mathematically, they would fall at same speed.\n\nIf they were in different places or time, the forces exert on them may be different e.g. the moon which cause tides, and the gravitational acceleration 'g' is different from place to place.\n\nMy answer is different, coz' I am not a physicist but an engineer. I take everything into account. Of course, there are many forces beside gravitation and air resistant.\n\n"No air resistant" doesn't mean that there is only gravity. Besides, gravity different from place to place.
687913
It tilts because its foundation was built on unstable soil. Construction of the tower began in 1173 and ended between 1360 and 1370. The ground beneath the tower first started to sink after the first three stories were built. \n\nIn 1990, the tower was closed for repairs. At that time, its lean had been increasing an average of 1/20 of an inch (1.3 millimeters) per year. Engineers hope to stabilize the tower's foundation and straighten it slightly to prevent it from eventually collapsing and falling over.\n\nCheck it out for yourself at :\n\nhttp://www.spartechsoftware.com/reeko/ScienceTips/LeaningPisa.htm
553816
wasn't supposed to.  There is no doubt that a plane flew into the pentagon and two into the World Trade Center.\n\n\n\n\nPS.  It proves it takes to long to enforce the the freedom of information act.
250753
I agree with you about the twin towers falling. My husband is an iron worker and has helped build a lot of "tall" buildings. He even said structural steel does not "melt" all the way to the bottom floor, like it supposedly did. He believes the buildings were "wired" from the bottom up. The fuel did not leak out all the way to the bottom. The pictures on tv of the twin towers falling reminded me of the pictures they show when a company is purposely demolishing a building.
569943
You are correct, nothing could save the people stuck in the Towers.  However, cell phones helped people tell others they were OK. \n\n I want to be able to contact my kids ASAP if/when something else happens.  I'm living in a "target area" - its different from living in North Dakota or someplace not on the short list.
619968
The solidity of the ground. The ground was too soft to support the weigfht of the tower. The distribution of the towers weight on it's surface area required a more compact soil to be build upon. The engineers of that time didn`t have the means to predict this problem accuratly and hence the tower started leaning a fraction of an inch each year since the time it was built, untill it reached the weird inclination it has now.
371534
counterquestion: (will you ask it for me?) why where the planes that crashed into the towers only filled up 1/5. not one of the airlines would have taken of with so few people on board. at least they say so.
819948
Despite your bad spelling, the answer's quite simple:\n\nThey couldn't find enough "Crack Hos" in New York who could stay on their feet long enough......