This is what I mean by conspiracy claims that are factually wrong.
Keith
11

Looks like you need some memory refresh, sir.

Before that, let me say that I do not doubt that the twin towers were hit by airplanes. Who actually flew the planes is another question. I don’t speculate on that because I don’t want to further any conspiracy theory.

But I question.

Accusing everybody who asks questions to be a conspiracy theorist very much sounds like religious people who defend their belief that the world is just 5000 years old and dinosaurs lived together with mankind which all descends from Adam and Eve.

Any skeptic person with a working brain and some engineering knowledge can certainly ask who of the supposed terrorist group had the ability to fly a huge airliner with such a precision into a skyscraper that was not much broader than its wing span, or into the Pentagon, considering the speed, turbulences and other aerodynamic problems and the fact that none of these people had ever flown such a machine.

One out of four with any experience to fly any airplane miserably failed the test flight on a Cessna when he tried to rent one in Maryland some time before 9/11. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, “It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all.” 
So this man did not find himself overwhelmed by the immense amount of controls in the cockpit of a huge passenger airliner and managed to do all the maneuvers necessary to fly this plane towards the pentagon and finally into its facade without crashing at any point before that. My admiration. 
This what actual pilots have to say: http://csglobe.com/pilot-who-flew-the-airplanes-that-crashed-on-911/ . Why would international aviation professionals and pilots (list here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.htm) organize to publicly express their doubts in the official version of the events? Are they all conspiracy theoretics?

But let’s talk about skyscrapers “Folding (or not) into themselves”.

First, have a look how planned demolitions can go wrong if not done by excellent experts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHcCbY2wY38 and how it looks when they are done by experts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpUwiae89UI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H93bgnTmb0s

Now look at building 7 collapsing 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU
Allegedly it folded into itself and came down vertically because a fire in some medium floors had weakened the entire steel structure. What burned there? Kerosene? No, office furniture. Look up the temperature that such a fire can develop and the temperature at which steels loses a significant part of its strength. Compares? Or are you just too busy to look it up?
Now if you have the very least understanding of physics, you may know that the earth’s gravitation “g” of about 9.81 m/sec² means that any mass that falls freely towards ground accelerates with this value. In other words, every second its velocity increases linearly by 9.81 m/s. If you have an apple (or a huge block of concrete) of the mass “m” at a height of “h” meters above ground, it would have an initial potential energy of m*g*h which transforms into kinetic energy while it falls. For every meter that it falls, its kinetic energy increases exactly as much as it’s potential energy decreases. (Thank you, Mr. Newton).

Thus for a free falling mass that finds no significant resistance in its fall, the velocity increases linearly. This would not be the case with a building which loses its structural strength due to a very hot fire in a higher floor because at first the mass of the upper floors would smash the bearing structure of the burning floor(s) (and a bit of the floor above) while the lower floors have not been weakened because there was no fire. So the top would lower about the height of one or a few floors, losing the equivalent amount of potential energy and pass the gained kinetic energy onto the lower structure. But it would encounter the resistance of the lower floors and might even not move lower, depending on the strength of the lower structure and the amount of kinetic energy of the upper part. 
This energy is m*g*h minus the energy needed to destroy the beams and the walls of the burning floor, where h is the height of the floor. We could calculate it using the mass of the upper floors and an estimated acceleration value for its fall. Certainly this value would be less than 9.81 m/v² because the upper building part does not fall through an empty space but by bending heated steel and crushing concrete walls. Let´s assume for a moment that the lower structure could not bear this impact and would crumble, too. Would we see a down movement equivalent to free fall through air? Certainly not. The acceleration would not be constant and of course it would not be equivalent to free fall because the potential energy would be absorbed in several steps, first by bending hot steel beams and then by doing the same to cold beams with a higher resistance. Hopefully you have been able to follow the physics until this point. Now watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I and reflect on what you have learned. In case you are not an engineer or don’t remember your physics classes, just ask if you don’t understand what this video shows. Also, if you doubt the calculations made therein, ask your physics professor or any architect.

Regarding the twin towers, did they damage neighboring buildings? Of course they did. Just think about the volume of a 110 stories high building collapsing into about 10% or less of its original height. Where does all the concrete go? It expands on the ground and while it collapses it sprays rubbish around. The volume of the concrete and steel that was once 415 meters high does not disappear when it crumbles, even if it falls into its own footprints. Certainly, there is a lot of empty space in a building, but concrete does not melt like butter, it breaks and spreads debris.
But did one or both towers tip over? Did building 7 tip over? Nope. All three fell onto their own footprint, exactly like we know it from planned demolitions. They did not lean over like we can see in some of the failed demolitions in the first video, although the initial damages were not symmetric (e.g. the fire in building 7 started on one side and made more damage there before the building crumbled).
Where it planned demolitions? I dunno. It certainly looked the same.
Have anytime before skyscrapers collapsed onto their own footprint due to a fire? Short answer: No. Long answer: steel buildings have been destroyed by fire before and one of them was a high rise, the Windsor Tower in Madrid. 
But it did not collapse onto its footprint. Look here what happened to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVnasLA . Looks even similar? Nope.
The other cases were very different constructions and were destroyed in different manners. An even longer and quite detailed discussion presenting arguments pro and contra is here: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/06/other-collapses-in-perspective_04.html

Looks like an extremely rare case that on one single day in one place three high rises crumble nearly the same way onto their footprint like it had not happened before elsewhere in the same manner.

You can’t kill facts by calling them conspiracy theories.
Thanks for considering that Newton may have been into some cool stuff and that some people know how to apply it.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Giovanni Dimaggio’s story.