6 ms·

Not to hijack this thread...but as a non-believer in conspiracies, I was recently discussing with someone about whether or not the towers fell at 9.8m/s. The c

Not to hijack this thread...but as a non-believer in conspiracies, I was recently discussing with someone about whether or not the towers fell at 9.8m/s. The claim is that it was 'measured', and determined that both towers fell at close to that rate. The implication being that a 'non-intentional' demolition of the towers could not have caused them to fall at close to the standard rate of bodies in free fall. I would love to hear some thoughts on this theory.

sliverstorm 14y ago
a 'non-intentional' demolition of the towers could not have caused them to fall at close to the standard rate of bodies in free fall. Before you even bother with the claim you are curious about, I suggest you substantiate this particular piece.
- marcamillion 14y ago
  Well...the theory goes that if an intentional demolotion can only cause a building to fall close-ish to the 9.8m/s, then a 'non-intentional' collapse surely must be slower.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    That doesn't even make sense. What does gravity care for intent?
    - marcamillion 14y ago
      Because there are obstacles along the way. Support beams, uncollapsed floors, etc. that will slow down the descent. As I said, I haven't bought into this theory yet. Just want to get other opinions on whether or not it makes sense in this particular case.
      - regularfry 14y ago
        The time taken for an uncollapsed floor to become a collapsed floor in the face of even a fraction of a tower falling onto it is unimaginably brief. In short, the reason that the towers' collapses looked like controlled demolitions is because controlled demolitions don't rely on the explosives to destroy the building, they rely on destabilising it enough that it falls in on itself. The "controlled" part is just making sure it collapses inwards.
    - Firehed 14y ago
      There's a lot of stuff that has to break. Theory being that (at least until there's a certain amount of momentum) the structure of the undamaged building will slow the collapse. Remember, the damage was three quarters of the way up the building, not at the foundation. I'm no demolitions expert nor am I a physics major, so I can't speak as to how structures of that size behave under those conditions - though I'm sure the conspiracies have been thoroughly debunked by now. But that's the thinking. Personally I'm more inclined to disbelieve a conspiracy theory simply because there's no way our government is competent enough to keep a secret that big for eleven years - across multiple administrations. But who knows - maybe there're better at their jobs than I'm willing to give them credit for.
      - marcamillion 14y ago
        Wow....I couldn't have articulated my position better myself. Hence my bringing up this topic. It's not that I doubt that people would want to (and perhaps have motive) to pull off a stunt like this. It is the subsequent burying of the evidence and keeping it a secret for so long - something that has attracted more scrutiny than any other terrorist attack in recent history. Either the gov't is far more sophisticated than we imagine, which I doubt - or the theories are just that. Theories. I am more inclined to believe the latter.
      - conductor 14y ago
        The government? The one that we "elected" (election between two preselected candidates/puppets? Really?). Or maybe the real one, who's behind the scene, the puppet-masters? If this was an inside job, there are not so many people (especially public people) who were behind it. They just needed to hire some Arabs (through several proxies) and train them to intercept the airplanes. And I'm sure those Arabs didn't know who was really behind it (they were sure it was Osama who could be an agent or a legend). Then make sure the secret services somehow fail to do their job at time X. Then eliminate/threat/silence those people at lower levels who couldn't understand some actions/lack of actions and were suspicious about that. It isn't so hard for people with sufficient power and money, don't you think?
      - cantrevealname 14y ago
    - conductor 14y ago
      in case of intentional demolition there are explosive at all levels they blow up and speed up the demolition. So when the airplane hit the building, it should had taken more time than when using explosives, or airplane + explosives.
      - sliverstorm 14y ago
        At this point I must defer to civil engineers. I do not have the background in structures to model their collapse and draw reliable conclusions.
      - ars 14y ago
        The energy contained in that much mass falling down is far FAR more than any explosive (more than what would be using to bring down a building anyway). Each story had about 480MJ worth of energy. That's equivalent to about 1/10 of a ton of TNT. That's each story falling just one floor mind you. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%281500000+tons+%2F+110%29+*+13+feet+*+g&a=UnitClash_*g.*StandardAccelerationOfGravity--&a=UnitClash_*tons.*ShortTons.dflt-- http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%281500000+tons+%2F+110... For the North tower that's 120 floor equivalents as the 15 floors fell, about 12 tons of TNT. For the entire tower that's 700 tons of TNT (assuming the mass of the tower is distributed evenly, which it isn't, but it's still a huge amount of energy).
        marcamillion 14y ago
        Can you explain this please? Where did you get the 15000000 tons figure from. Also..what relation does 480MJ of energy have on the rate at which the building would have collapsed? Are you debunking the theory that it was explosives, or supporting it?
        ars 14y ago
        From here: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html That's the weight of the entire tower. I'm saying that there is more energy in simply the tower falling than there would be in any explosive. So it would not fall any faster with an explosive - there already is much more energy there than needed.
conductor 14y ago
Well, believer or non-believer, there are many loose ends in the official theory, and there are many documentary films that are proving a bunch of facts that boldly indicate that this was a planned inside job. Just think, wouldn't those who run the world spend just several hundred lives and two buildings to gain a so profitable war on terror, the Patriot Act, and a new permanent enemy (the terrorists!) to keep the people in terror and pull more and more of their rights to "protect them".
- gsibble 14y ago
  One of my greatest issues with 911 conspiracy theories are that people believe that the government and George W are capable of planning such a brilliant and perfectly executed false flag attack and then claim that George W. Bush is a complete moron in the same sentence. You can't have it both ways, lol.
  - corin_ 14y ago
    That line of logic really doesn't make any sense at all. I personally believe Bush to be a moron, but he wasn't the only person doing stuff in that administration. Every president, great or terrible, has relied on staff below them to assist and advise, and that's not a bad thing. Hypothetically, if this was a conspiracy, then Bush's involvement would have been at the very most listening to options and then selecting one. For the same reason I can, in the same sentence, say that America invaded Iraq and that Bush isn't a trained soldier. (For the record I don't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy.)
  - conductor 14y ago
    I've answered to that claim above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4504359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4504359
  - izmail 14y ago
    Who said George W. Bush was running the show? He was just a puppet. Give the guy some cocaine and he'll say whatever the hell you want him to say. Think about it. Who had the biggest geopolitical motive to invade Iraq for its oil and Afghanistan for its minerals? It's not the people calling shots in front of you, it's the guys with the money behind them.

sliverstorm 14y ago

a 'non-intentional' demolition of the towers could not have caused them to fall at close to the standard rate of bodies in free fall. Before you even bother with the claim you are curious about, I suggest you substantiate this particular piece.

marcamillion 14y ago
Well...the theory goes that if an intentional demolotion can only cause a building to fall close-ish to the 9.8m/s, then a 'non-intentional' collapse surely must be slower.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  That doesn't even make sense. What does gravity care for intent?
  - marcamillion 14y ago
    Because there are obstacles along the way. Support beams, uncollapsed floors, etc. that will slow down the descent. As I said, I haven't bought into this theory yet. Just want to get other opinions on whether or not it makes sense in this particular case.
    - regularfry 14y ago
      The time taken for an uncollapsed floor to become a collapsed floor in the face of even a fraction of a tower falling onto it is unimaginably brief. In short, the reason that the towers' collapses looked like controlled demolitions is because controlled demolitions don't rely on the explosives to destroy the building, they rely on destabilising it enough that it falls in on itself. The "controlled" part is just making sure it collapses inwards.
  - Firehed 14y ago
    There's a lot of stuff that has to break. Theory being that (at least until there's a certain amount of momentum) the structure of the undamaged building will slow the collapse. Remember, the damage was three quarters of the way up the building, not at the foundation. I'm no demolitions expert nor am I a physics major, so I can't speak as to how structures of that size behave under those conditions - though I'm sure the conspiracies have been thoroughly debunked by now. But that's the thinking. Personally I'm more inclined to disbelieve a conspiracy theory simply because there's no way our government is competent enough to keep a secret that big for eleven years - across multiple administrations. But who knows - maybe there're better at their jobs than I'm willing to give them credit for.
    - marcamillion 14y ago
      Wow....I couldn't have articulated my position better myself. Hence my bringing up this topic. It's not that I doubt that people would want to (and perhaps have motive) to pull off a stunt like this. It is the subsequent burying of the evidence and keeping it a secret for so long - something that has attracted more scrutiny than any other terrorist attack in recent history. Either the gov't is far more sophisticated than we imagine, which I doubt - or the theories are just that. Theories. I am more inclined to believe the latter.
    - conductor 14y ago
      The government? The one that we "elected" (election between two preselected candidates/puppets? Really?). Or maybe the real one, who's behind the scene, the puppet-masters? If this was an inside job, there are not so many people (especially public people) who were behind it. They just needed to hire some Arabs (through several proxies) and train them to intercept the airplanes. And I'm sure those Arabs didn't know who was really behind it (they were sure it was Osama who could be an agent or a legend). Then make sure the secret services somehow fail to do their job at time X. Then eliminate/threat/silence those people at lower levels who couldn't understand some actions/lack of actions and were suspicious about that. It isn't so hard for people with sufficient power and money, don't you think?
    - cantrevealname 14y ago
  - conductor 14y ago
    in case of intentional demolition there are explosive at all levels they blow up and speed up the demolition. So when the airplane hit the building, it should had taken more time than when using explosives, or airplane + explosives.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      At this point I must defer to civil engineers. I do not have the background in structures to model their collapse and draw reliable conclusions.
    - ars 14y ago
      The energy contained in that much mass falling down is far FAR more than any explosive (more than what would be using to bring down a building anyway). Each story had about 480MJ worth of energy. That's equivalent to about 1/10 of a ton of TNT. That's each story falling just one floor mind you. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%281500000+tons+%2F+110%29+*+13+feet+*+g&a=UnitClash_*g.*StandardAccelerationOfGravity--&a=UnitClash_*tons.*ShortTons.dflt-- http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%281500000+tons+%2F+110... For the North tower that's 120 floor equivalents as the 15 floors fell, about 12 tons of TNT. For the entire tower that's 700 tons of TNT (assuming the mass of the tower is distributed evenly, which it isn't, but it's still a huge amount of energy).
      - marcamillion 14y ago
        Can you explain this please? Where did you get the 15000000 tons figure from. Also..what relation does 480MJ of energy have on the rate at which the building would have collapsed? Are you debunking the theory that it was explosives, or supporting it?
        ars 14y ago
        From here: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html That's the weight of the entire tower. I'm saying that there is more energy in simply the tower falling than there would be in any explosive. So it would not fall any faster with an explosive - there already is much more energy there than needed.

conductor 14y ago

Well, believer or non-believer, there are many loose ends in the official theory, and there are many documentary films that are proving a bunch of facts that boldly indicate that this was a planned inside job. Just think, wouldn't those who run the world spend just several hundred lives and two buildings to gain a so profitable war on terror, the Patriot Act, and a new permanent enemy (the terrorists!) to keep the people in terror and pull more and more of their rights to "protect them".

gsibble 14y ago
One of my greatest issues with 911 conspiracy theories are that people believe that the government and George W are capable of planning such a brilliant and perfectly executed false flag attack and then claim that George W. Bush is a complete moron in the same sentence. You can't have it both ways, lol.
- corin_ 14y ago
  That line of logic really doesn't make any sense at all. I personally believe Bush to be a moron, but he wasn't the only person doing stuff in that administration. Every president, great or terrible, has relied on staff below them to assist and advise, and that's not a bad thing. Hypothetically, if this was a conspiracy, then Bush's involvement would have been at the very most listening to options and then selecting one. For the same reason I can, in the same sentence, say that America invaded Iraq and that Bush isn't a trained soldier. (For the record I don't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy.)
- conductor 14y ago
  I've answered to that claim above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4504359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4504359
- izmail 14y ago
  Who said George W. Bush was running the show? He was just a puppet. Give the guy some cocaine and he'll say whatever the hell you want him to say. Think about it. Who had the biggest geopolitical motive to invade Iraq for its oil and Afghanistan for its minerals? It's not the people calling shots in front of you, it's the guys with the money behind them.