Quote from mookie427 :

Quote from durbster :

And here's a couple of building collapse simulations that might interest those who think it's impossible for a damaged building to fall as the WTC towers did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H-mz...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PSt2AOfejc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpBUiZfnEu4&NR=1 this is better

I just had the chance to look at these and they are very fine pieces of animation and alot of work must have been put in, but the pieces that are used to put this together are not secured very well. The towers were rigid, not able to shake as much as those animations show. I'm also sure that if each floor of those "buildings" was an actual floor it would be a total different collapse.

Also, I know it's a slowmo and not to scale of the towers, atleast I don't think it is, did you see how long it took? See, friction/materials prevent free fall, so obviously something was done to the tower so that the falling section was on the ground in ~10seconds, near free fall speed. The remaining tower was a solid structure, a mesh of steel and concrete floors, 40+ interior columns that got thicker as the got nearer the bottom.

Both explinations I heard today for what happened the top section of each tower seem wrong to me. One is it fell apart as it got to the closer to the bottom but still kept its strength, enough to crush the rest of the tower and two is it stayed intact, crushed the rest of the tower and then collapsed itself once reaching the ground. Both contradict each other and both seem to be impossible. A bunch of debrit falling and not just falling straight down, some getting thrown outwards, still has the strength and force to crush columns which are standing straight up and rigid, it's not right.

And then the other, it stays together... unreal. How can it stay together and crush an object made of the same materials but 4 or 5 times the size of it? I understand it's falling but shit doesn't just disintegrate on impact allowing it to continue falling close to free fall. I know atoms aren't actually solid objects but this is taking the biscuit, 1/4 or 1/5 of a structure can go through the other 3/4's or 4/5's and nearly free fall speed and through the path of MOST resistance... amazing how anyone can believe that. I could totally understand if it was the other way round, 4/5's crushing 1/5, but this is incomprehensible.



EDIT: Ok, I just found this video on youtube. It tries to duplicate what happened. Not totally the specs of the towers and not a strong as the towers were, but it is a more accurate experiment than any computer generated animation I have seen yet. It goes with what I was saying, 1/5 of any structure would find it very hard to totally crush the other 4/5's of the structure by falling the distance the tops of the towers fell, or to scale of that distance. And as one of the comments said, why can't they just build a scaled down replica of the towers and see how it falls with the affects of fire and gravity?

If you still feel that the way the towers fell was not influenced by any other force except fire and gravity after watching this, then I don't think you will ever understand this even if it is common knowledge. Here's the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related

He did it

Quote from wheel4hummer :

I do think that it is completely plausible that WTC 7 was demolished on purpose. It was already damaged, and they probably didn't want it to collapse randomly and kill people. So, they demolished it since it was so damaged and a risk. That would make sense, sort of.

And why not say ANYTHING to the public? Why oh why wouldn't they say "we collapsed WTC7 on purpose in order not to injure our workers if it colapse by itself" or something like that, instead, their official reason was "fire"??

And are you telling me that PENTAGON doesn't have any official HD cameras recording 24/7? instead of those GIF cameras that record one frame every 3 seconds?
Have a look at this video and tell me what that white spike is, i didn't know that 757 has that spikey front end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... 3Cs&feature=rec-fresh

EDIT:

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Here's the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related

That's a great example..

Quote from Boris Lozac :

And why not say ANYTHING to the public?

I was just saying that I think it is plausible that the WTC 7 was brought down on purpose. What would be there reasons? I have no idea. No-one will ever really know.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

And why not say ANYTHING to the public? Why oh why wouldn't they say "we collapsed WTC7 on purpose in order not to injure our workers if it colapse by itself" or something like that, instead, their official reason was "fire"?? ....

Exactly, they would have said something if they later decided to take it down, I've seen footage of people talking about taking building six down. Also, there are firefighters and other witnesses who knew that WTC7 was going to fall, they heard it over the radios. How come they are not all over the news saying this?

Read this -
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080829205835711
"the collapse baffled FEMA who lamely concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

And this -
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html
"The [Commission]Report fails to mention the total collapse of 47-story st ... med skyscraper Building 7 at 5:20 on the day of the attack."

Then say everything is fine and dandy, nothing to see here...

Quote from wheel4hummer :

No-one will ever really know.

If everyone thinks that way it's mission acomplished for them... If enough people ask questions the thruth will be revealed one day...
The ONLY thing that stops this conspiracy thinking in me is that, can anyone be that sick to organize such thing to their own citizens, to allow firefighters to enter the buildings knowing they would collapse, and also hundreds of people would need to be involved in that, yet i still can't believe their official story, there's just so much bullshit there it's not even funny...

Someone in this forum linked to a 9/11 site where my articles are archived, so I thought to register and post this information for anyone interested:

==============================================


9/11: Distinguishing The Propaganda From The Smoking Guns


By CB_Brooklyn
September 2008
(updated - see bottom)

(mirrored on checktheevidence.com)


Seven years and the media still lies about 9/11. Disgraceful, isn’t it? A million leaflets, dozens of films, but continued silence. Why is this happening? Why hasn’t the truth movement’s work broken through the media’s lies? The answer relates to the material the “truth movement” promotes.

Vladimir Lenin, the first Communist dictator after the takeover of Russia in 1917, is widely credited with the following quotation, "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." A look through the “Global Analysis - Inter ... Intelligence” archives reveal many comparisons between Lenin and Bush.

Those in control of the world have top-secret exotic technologies. These technologies could replace oil and gas, but instead have been weaponized. 9/11 was orchestrated with these technologies. They plan a police state culture and don’t mind if a limited number of people are exposed to the 9/11 propaganda, as long as the advanced technologies remain secret. See “The 9/11 Truth Movement, Fr ... lobal Elite’s Agenda” for full information.

Who controls the horizontal? Who controls the vertical? We know the corporate media to be our culture’s main source of news. Unfortunately though, our trustworthy media is completely controlled. Observe the graph below (sourced here) and note all this happened in just 20 years time. This chart details the corporations involved.



Did you know the Washington Post owns Newsweek? Or that the New York Times owns the Boston Globe? Believe it or not, getting the news “changed” to suit one’s preference isn’t that difficult. As this Saudi Prince and Rupert Murdoch know, all it requires is shares of a news agency and the owner’s phone number!

Not only do the media censor information, they’re a propaganda-promotion tool:

This March 2000 WorldNetDaily article gives some info on this. Note this quote: “…"psyops" (psychological operations) personnel, soldiers and officers, have worked in the CNN headquarters in Atlanta.” Why on earth would “PSYOPS soldiers” work at CNN? What possible purpose could they serve?

This April 2006 Washington Post article concerning the Iraq war reveals something too: “The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.” Courtesy of the CNN PSYOPS Soldiers??

This June 2008 Washington Times article details Congress’ attempt to “ban Pentagon propaganda on the Iraq war”. What kind of system is this if Congress needs to create a bill to ban propaganda?

Tom Curley, President and CEO of the Associated Press, voiced his opinion: “9/11 attacks harm First Amendment”.

The perpetrators who orchestrated 9/11 are using these media-propaganda techniques to control the opposition.
The “truth movement” is the opposition.


Let’s start by sorting through some of the planted propaganda. Then we’ll examine the smoking gun evidence of exotic weapons, including a timeline of 9/11 events relevant to the technologies used. Following the timeline are some personal statements about a couple of individuals in the “truth movement”. In the final section, we’ll examine two non-9/11 “conspiracy theories”. These should help open up the mind to exotic weaponry should the reader still consider it science fiction. (Warning: The last section contains potentially upsetting material, and will permanently alter the average person’s perception of reality.)



* Lenin-inspired Propaganda *


Let’s look at four examples of this propaganda and how the media promote it. The reader will note that “prominent figures” within the “truth movement” who support the propaganda have affiliations with exotic weaponry and the Global Elite. See the “Global Elite Agenda” article (linked above) for a list of people who lost their lives as part of the cover-up.


Continued...
http://www.checktheevidence.co ... &id=199&Itemid=60

Quote from wheel4hummer :

I was just saying that I think it is plausible that the WTC 7 was brought down on purpose. What would be there reasons? I have no idea. No-one will ever really know.

Do you know how complicated it is to demolish a building? It takes days of preparation, hundreds of metres of fuse wire, explosives carefully positioned. It's not just a case of chucking in a bomb and setting it off, it takes weeks of planning.

And considering nobody here is qualified to talk about the physics of building collapses, this might be worth a read:
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/wr ... king911.htm#_Toc144445987

Hah, you can't fool me! I know the "9/11 truth movement" is just a government setup, cunningly constructed to hide the REAL truth. Bring all the "evidence" you want, but I ain't fallin' for it! I've seen South Park.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

Lol@argument between Tristan and U4IK.

Unless either of you actually know anything about buildings, how they're constructed, the properties of the materials, the engineering side of it, I think you should both stop taking pot shots and making assumptions about how buildings are constructed, and how buildings collage.

@U4IK, gravity pulls downwards. If the building stays mainly upright it'll collapse downwards. If it's at an angle, like in your video, it'll fall sideways. Common sense of physics, really.

Unless you've been living in a hole then you'll know that I do fulfil some of those critera.
I would like to know how much engineering education and experience U4IK has.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

The video from the fuel station has been released, along with video footage from the Doubletree hotel under the freedom of information act I believe. But none of them are clear. A video from either the hotel facing the Pentagon, can't remember it's name, or a video from the highway cameras will show, without doubt, what hit the Pentagon.

The video was released with the frame showing the actual "plane" removed.

The camera from on top of the hotel was never released.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Ok, for [2] there wasn't enough energy produced at the beginning of the collapse to make parts fly off and dust/debrit clouds to start coming from the building. See the falling building video I linked to. What could cause that?

Before the collapse begins, as soon as the upper floors fell 50 cms before they reach the first lower floor...there is 10 times enough energy to crush that floor...enough energy to crush it, burn everything, and throw some parts dozens of yards away. And contrary to demolitions where the entire building is falling almost at the same speed, here there was a collision between moving upper part and steady lower part. Like a collision between two trucks, one moving faster and faster...

After 50 cms fall, that is to say 0.31s the upper floors (80 000 tons) has acquired 400 million joules of kinetic energy....it means the fall is providing at the very beginning 1.29 billion watts of crushing power. And this power increases as the upper parts continues falling. This is what you call no energy?

Quote from tristancliffe :

Unless you've been living in a hole then you'll know that I do fulfil some of those critera.
I would like to know how much engineering education and experience U4IK has.

Ha...nice. Why do I need an education in such fields when many, many more people, alot more educated than you or I, can do proper research and get results from experiments, which I see and agree with. But then you come along with "some" engineering experience and think you should be bowed down to? Get real my friend. And I rarely give my personal views on this so whatever eduction I do have doesn't come into it. I am either asking educated people like yourself questions about their conclusions OR repeating what people with a higher knowledge base than I say.

Listen, you choose to pick at certain things I say and leave out others. What's the deal there? Comment on the experiment with the office "equipment" and tell me the top section of the tower was able to crush the bottom part which it held there for a coniderable time while damaged.

Quote from Jakg :

The video was released with the frame showing the actual "plane" removed.

The camera from on top of the hotel was never released.

I linked to the videos in a later post, replying to mookie. Here it is - http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=924792#post924792 - I'm not sure which video you describe with the frame actually showing the plane being removed but these videos show no plane because they are so far away and not at the right angle to see anything other than a puff of smoke. Maybe you talk about the first official released images, the frame wasn't removed it was never there to start with becase it's a time lapse camera.

Quote from Juls :

Before the collapse begins, as soon as the upper floors fell 50 cms before they reach the first lower floor...there is 10 times enough energy to crush that floor...enough energy to crush it, burn everything, and throw some parts dozens of yards away. And contrary to demolitions where the entire building is falling almost at the same speed, here there was a collision between moving upper part and steady lower part. Like a collision between two trucks, one moving faster and faster...

After 50 cms fall, that is to say 0.31s the upper floors (80 000 tons) has acquired 400 million joules of kinetic energy....it means the fall is providing at the very beginning 1.29 billion watts of crushing power. And this power increases as the upper parts continues falling. This is what you call no energy?

Oh man, like 2 trucks you say? So... lets say 1 truck is on the highway cruising at 90kmph and it hit a truck which is stationary at the side of the road. You are telling me that the stationary truck will be crushed to pieces!?

Again only picking up on things that you can argue with, listen, look at that experiment with the office equipment and then come back with your thoughts please. Here's a link so you don't have to search for it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related

EDIT: Where are you grabbing these figures from? 400mil joules? 1.29billion watts? I hope it's not from that paper by Mr. Greening because I couldn't trust his conclusions if he calculates it wrong. Dividing by only 110 and not 116, so the total mass would be alot larger therefore the total energy would be a wrong calculation. Ok, I understand you obviously have a better knowledge of these things than me but how come the experiment I linked to didn't work? There's no way in hell that top few floors could crush the rest of the building, to the ground! No way. Even a scaled down model should act exactly like the towers, if of course what they say is true, if not then it'll act like the experiment I linked to.

EDIT2: "This is what you call no energy?" I still stick with what I said, "there wasn't enough energy produced at the beginning of the collapse to make parts fly off and dust/debrit clouds to start coming from the building." I'm making that statement based on videos and accounts I have read of heavy things falling, you prove to me I'm wrong? Spitting out numbers and figures is all well and good but what if your calculations are wrong, just like Mr. Greenings? Show me evidence of this energy, or something with this amount of potential energy, something releasing a force of 400mil joules or 1.29billion watts.

So your commenting on things you know nothing about because you heard someone else say them. But as you didn't understand the theory behind it, you don't know if you understood it correctly. Because most of what you say is nonsense.

Why can't upper floors collapsing cause the whole building to fall down? Why?

Listen Tristan, I have a fair idea of what can physically happen and what cannot physically happen. And I'm almost certain you are not qualified to judge me on this. That video I linked to PROVED that 1/5 of a structure, no matter how it's built, will find it a difficult task to crush the other 4/5's of the structure if it's dropped from a height, 8-10feet or to scale of that height. You don't need to be an engineer or scientist to know what can or cannot happen to a falling piece of a building.

Tell me, do you think if they built a scale model, say 20ft high, that it will react exactly like the towers did?

Also, do you think the structure below this falling 15-20 floors of the tower was stronger of weaker?


EDIT:@Juls: I've been reading up on what energy is needed to produce certain amounts of joules. So since you can work these things out better than I can, can you figure out how many joules or watts of energy was created by the planes hitting the towers? Or the fuel burning off in one big fireball, how many joules was involved there?

Why aren't I qualified to judge you on this - your grasp of mechanics is pretty piss poor. Even a village idiot could see that.

I don't think i proved anything at all, in the slightest. How accurate was the model, and what materials did they use it it? Stonger or weaker than what?

Lmao, what a response. You are not qualified to judge me because you are not qualified, are you? My grasp of mechanics is piss poor. What a piss poor arguement, they're just words mate, prove me wrong. (EDIT: Actually it's not ME you have to prove wrong, you do your own experiment and use whatever materials you like and reproduce what happened in the towers.)

Did you not see the video? Well it used weaker and alot less material and it still could not produce a collapse anywhere near what happened the towers. So a stronger, more structurally rigid building, fell alot easier?

Here's the link, again... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related You can't say that this is piss poor mechanics. This is a physical test, better than anything NIST or the Commission report could come up with.

Quote :

Also, do you think the structure below this falling 15-20 floors of the tower was stronger of weaker?

Quote :

Stonger or weaker than what?

Do you think the top section(15-20 floors) of the tower falling was stronger or weaker than the lower section(85-90 floors)?


EDIT: Once again Tristan you ignore my questions and try to put me down without stating any facts. I have never once made a derogatory term about anyone here or any of their views. Arogant people like you are the worse type of people to have a converstaion with because you think you know it all, atleast I admit when I don't know something and you put me down for that? Saying my grasp of mechanics is piss poor, please give examples because the only mechanics I have shown is either from professionals or actual physical tests which cannot be disputed. So, lets have a good converstaion about the subject and not about any of our own thoughts or ideas about how certain things work.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Lmao, what a response. You are not qualified to judge me because you are not qualified, are you? My grasp of mechanics is piss poor. What a piss poor arguement, they're just words mate, prove me wrong. (EDIT: Actually it's not ME you have to prove wrong, you do your own experiment and use whatever materials you like and reproduce what happened in the towers.)

Did you not see the video? Well it used weaker and alot less material and it still could not produce a collapse anywhere near what happened the towers. So a stronger, more structurally rigid building, fell alot easier?

Here's the link, again... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related You can't say that this is piss poor mechanics. This is a physical test, better than anything NIST or the Commission report could come up with.



Do you think the top section(15-20 floors) of the tower falling was stronger or weaker than the lower section(85-90 floors)?


EDIT: Once again Tristan you ignore my questions and try to put me down without stating any facts. I have never once made a derogatory term about anyone here or any of their views. Arogant people like you are the worse type of people to have a converstaion with because you think you know it all, atleast I admit when I don't know something and you put me down for that? Saying my grasp of mechanics is piss poor, please give examples because the only mechanics I have shown is either from professionals or actual physical tests which cannot be disputed. So, lets have a good converstaion about the subject and not about any of our own thoughts or ideas about how certain things work.

I am qualified, thank you very much. Now that we've established that, I can happy say you don't know what you're talking about. At all.

Is that experiement being carried out with desk tidies? And you said my coke can experiement was weak (which also shows you haven't got the faintest clue about either approximations or load paths)! If I made one out of lego it would probably survive me throwing a bicycle at it, but that doesn't mean you could throw an aircraft carrier at the real ones without them falling over.

The model was also, size for size, lighter, and was more slender (as in the ratio of height to cross sectional area).

The lower section was the same strength as the upper section, although (considering it as a classical cantilever) the bending, shear and torsional loads would of course vary with height.

The opinion of 'professionals' (whatever that means) and physics experiements are very much open to debate and discussion, as are their motives and what they are trying to say (as opposed to what they do say, and how eejits comprehend that with no relevent background knowledge at all).

Tristan, can you put all that mathemathical and physical bs aside (not that your knowledge is bs, i'm talking generally), can you explain how all the buildings from the WTC complex, numbers 3, 4, 5 (maybe not exact same numbers), how they survived the direct fall from the WTC 1 and 2 debris? They sustained significant damage but NOT ONE collapsed, NOT ONE, but WTC 7 who was even further then them collapsed in freefall speed, perfectly in it's footprint, do i have to say it again - in text-book demolition manner. THREE (3) buildings in the SAME day fell perfectly in their footprints from the fire?? Not a single building in history fell from the damage caused by fire, but on 9/11 three of them did?
You're a smart guy, i would guess you see that this is much more then a coincidence, TOO MANY coincidences happened that day it's redicolous. All that with WTC 1, 2 and 7, the passports, one of the most important buildings in the world only has Web cameras recording it etc etc... c'mon

Quote from tristancliffe :

I am qualified, thank you very much. Now that we've established that, I can happy say you don't know what you're talking about. At all.

Yeah, it's been established in your mind alright, you expect me to believe you? Just take your word for it? Pfff....

Quote :

Is that experiement being carried out with desk tidies? And you said my coke can experiement was weak (which also shows you haven't got the faintest clue about either approximations or load paths)! If I made one out of lego it would probably survive me throwing a bicycle at it, but that doesn't mean you could throw an aircraft carrier at the real ones without them falling over.

Aircraft carrier? Wha? Ok, lets look at these experiments.

Your coke can... First of all, the can was never designed to take the weight of a person, that's only possible because of how it's designed, it was never planned that way. You weigh alot more that the structure below you, also, if you didn't realise, you are made from different materials. As I said, make a model of the towers yourself and I guarantee you will not get the same results as what happened that day. Also, the difference in weight of the can and you is quite the opposite of the tower, the structure below was considerably stronger and heavier than the section falling onto it. So your coke can "experiment" is laughable in comparrison to the towers. Now a way you could use a can is if you build a tower of an exterior wall and an interior "core" wall of cans stacked on top of each other and secured, then smash a big section out near the top, set it on fire and wait to see what happens. I can, without any doubt in my mind, say that this structure will not be left as a crumpled pile of coke cans. (EDIT: you could add some floors if you like but that'll only make it stronger.)

Now the office desk tidies... Ok, each one represented 10 floors so we have a somewhat accurate representation of what the towers looked like. Unfortunately it has less exterior walls and no core columns so this should be a cake walk, it should just crumble when he drops the top few sections onto the remaining ones. But no, even when he add weight to the top section, it still wont fall. What happens? It follows the path of least resistance and falls OFF the desk tidy tower. How do you explain that? Do you agree that any physical objects, if thrown, dropped, whatever, will always follow the path of least resistance? Then why on this day did they take the path of MOST resistance and nobody bats an eyelid?

Quote :

The model was also, size for size, lighter, and was more slender (as in the ratio of height to cross sectional area).

The lower section was the same strength as the upper section, although (considering it as a classical cantilever) the bending, shear and torsional loads would of course vary with height.

But the model showed perfectly how an UNSECURE structure could withstand 1/5 to 1/4 of itself falling on it. I'm telling you that any structure in that proportion will never get the results that happened on 9/11.

The lower section was the same strength as the upper section? And you consider it as a classic cantilever? Only supported on one side? Amazing... And of course bending, shear and torsional loads would vary but do these things happen in a instant?

Quote :

The opinion of 'professionals' (whatever that means) and physics experiements are very much open to debate and discussion, as are their motives and what they are trying to say (as opposed to what they do say, and how eejits comprehend that with no relevent background knowledge at all).

Again taking pop shots at me personally. Anyway, I'll continue. You could say exactly the same about your own knowledge, it is open for debate and discussion. Not, I know it all and have the right to judge you because you are not qualified, what bs.

I seriously don't know why I'm taking the time to discuss this with you but I just feel it has to be done, just like Boris there. He sees inconsistancies but yet you, with your qualifications, think that's the way it's supposed to happen?

Quote from Boris Lozac :

...can you explain how all the buildings from the WTC complex, numbers 3, 4, 5 (maybe not exact same numbers), how they survived the direct fall from the WTC 1 and 2 debris? They sustained significant damage but NOT ONE collapsed, NOT ONE...

You make a good point there Boris.

How come the top section of the tower had the strength to crush the remaining floors but when it hit the other WTC buildings it failed to crush them? I'm sure the towers were alot stronger than any other building in Manhatton, never mind other buidlings in the WTC complex. And I'm also sure, judging by Juls' calculations, that the amount of energy was far, far greater than the energy at the beginning of the collapse, but the other building had the strength to withstand the towers falling on them. Not just one tower, both towers debrit!

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Ok, for [2] there wasn't enough energy produced at the beginning of the collapse to [...]

And [3] If you look at the towers and honestly believe that all that debrit and sections of the building were propelled by a gravity colapse [...]

You were misreading my post. Your remarks are still about point [1], i.e. why the standard theory is supposedly wrong. At point [2] and [3], you prove that it was possible to smuggle large quantities of explosives into the building and place them carefully on the crucial points in the structure, all without raising suspicion.

Quote :

I can't understand this, just because a theory is simpler it automatically gets the vote of everyone? That's crazy.

Not precisely. The simplest theory becomes the default. You can overturn it, but you need to have a good case.

For example, I could claim that the towers fell because they were shot down by an invisible Martian UFO. (Or by the hand of God/Allah. ) It would be a perfect explanation -- except that it goes against Occam's razor.

Quote :

So bin Laden is an enemy of the US? Do you think he is responsible for 9/11? The organising and funding of the operation?

Bin Laden, or any other terrorist would do as an explanation of the facts. They are a much fit than the Bush administration.

Quote from U4IK ST8 :

Here's the link, again... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related You can't say that this is piss poor mechanics. This is a physical test, better than anything NIST or the Commission report could come up with.

that IS piss-poor mechanics. How someone can do an experiment with few desk tidies stacked on top of one another and say they've disproved the 9/11 stories is laughable. You obviously know very little about what you're trying to talk about. Just reading some of the comments posted on that 'experiment' should be enough to convince you that it's a load of rubbish!

Better experiment: get hold of soft drink cans. Nail/glue 4 to the ground in a square, and glue lots more on top building a tower. Drop something heavy on top. What will happen? My money is on the tower collapsing straight down....

Quote from Boris Lozac :

can you explain how all the buildings from the WTC complex, numbers 3, 4, 5 (maybe not exact same numbers), how they survived the direct fall from the WTC 1 and 2 debris? They sustained significant damage but NOT ONE collapsed, NOT ONE, but WTC 7 who was even further then them collapsed in freefall speed

you're wrong. The Marriott Hotel making up part of the WTC complex was all but wiped out by the debris falling from the sky. That wasn't a small building by any means, small compared to the twin towers yes but at 22 or 23 storeys it wasn't tiny! Get your facts straight