A couple of videos on Youtube can explain all building collapse physics questions/variables for every situation on planet earth. Thanks for cracking the case.

the buildings didnt just collapse because of fire donkey, planes slammed into them and weakened the structure of the buildings. the now weakened structures burnt and subsequently collapsed. it wasnt just fire that fell the buildings.

but yeah youre right,k the government should be testing and rebuilding all steel strctures in case planes fly into them again :Oh crap

If you were able to read instead of just watch videos you'd understand my post to Rochard better. Good luck!

Yes the plane impacts made a difference. But two buildings hit in a different way collapsing in an identical and improbable way are beyond suspicious. A third building also falling symmetrically intoi its own footpront, as they say, is even more suspicious.

Donkey?!?

To anser the OP's post:

the goverment diidn't 'do it per se but...

if they didn't, they knew all about it,

and they loved it.

:D

Hahahahaha

In answer to the thread title...only the ignorant and the plumb dumb.

Some of us are not so keen to trust a channel whose logo has two 2 masonic pillars and a pyramid to the side :thumbsup

Of course dozens of columns were compromised. Here's a picture:

http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...-wtc-fires.jpg

From Wikipedia:
Again, the supports holding the floor in place - between what was left of the outer shell and the inner core fell. It fell down at least one story with the force of 300 tons. It took out the floor below it, and the floor below that.

The videos you showed (which surprised me really) seem to be more of the support of the building failing, which caused it the building to lean. In this case, the supports were still in place, but the floors were no longer attached to it. The floors fell down on each other, and continued to fall taking out other floors until it started to pull the entire structure with it.

You've mentioned this before and I'm not sure why. Your saying that the buildings fell straight down, but 20 ton pieces were flung 600 feet away? Which is it?

You need to understand the size of the towers. They were 210 feet wide - each side. When the towers fell, they took up more than 200 feet by 200 feet at the base. The towers went down hundreds of feet taking out a subway station, parking, and shopping centers, and also went out too. Millions of tons of concrete fell, and it should come as no surprise that it fell 600 feet away. Just think about the amount of force those tons of steel and concrete and what not fell.... An entire city block was destroyed - a huge city block.

A slab of concrete weighing 300 tons was suspended between the outer shell and the inner core. It fell, and when it fell it fell an entire story - what's that, fourteen feet? More? - and slammed into another 300 ton floor. Your looking at the floor below it as something that should stop the falling, but it didn't. The joints were meant to support 300 tons, not 300 tons and another 300 tons falling on top of it. Now 600 tons of steel and concrete are falling onto another floor. Your thinking it should have met with resistance at each floor, but the truth is none of the floors had any hope of holding this for even a fraction of a second and it quickly picked up momentum because it was picking up mass and weight.

You also mentioned how quickly the towers fell. Did they really fall that fast?

On this video, we can see the tower started to collapse at the fourteen second mark. However, that's only what we can see. We can't what was happening inside of the building; We can't see see if entire floors fell before that mark.



We also can't see when the building finally stopped - it's covered in dust. Seems to me on this video it was fifteen seconds, but that's only what we can see.

And I think there is a logical explanation for everything.

Why did WTC7 fall? Because billions of tons of concrete fell at it's doorstep. You don't question why a bridge falls during an earthquake, but a building that has millions of tons of concrete dropped at it's doorstep, destroying the entire front of the building, suffering earthquake like movements, and being on fire fifteen hours... What do you think is gonna happen?

Here's a picture of the progression of damage of WTC7...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rogression.png

Everything here is completely explained.

And again with the oil and the pipeline. Ten years after 9/11 this pipeline hasn't been built! And who is behind this magical pipeline that doesn't yet exist? Take a look at the first sentence on Wikipedia:

But even if this pipeline was to be build, it changes nothing. There's already pipelines in place without going through Afghanistan.

At the same time keep in mind where the bulk of America gets it's oil from - Canada and Mexico. If this was about oil and pipelines, why haven't we knocked off Canada and Mexico? We don't even need an excuse to fuck with Mexico....

Your a funny man!

Maybe.

The planes crashed differently from different angles, hitting different floors. However, the damage was very similar. Both buildings lost support from the outer walls, and both buildings had huge fires. The combination of the two weakened the supports of the floors, causing the floors to fall down.

The initial crashes were different, but the damage was identical.

(Can you not tell I love talking about this?)

Here's something... Everyone in the world (who owns a TV anyhow) saw the planes crash into the towers. If the intent was to scare the US public and to have the world allow / support a military move into Afghanistan, why use planes at all? Why not just use explosives.....

How would the media be able to explain how Muslims got explosives into the buildings? It would seem unrealistic, whereas the plane thing did seem believable at first until the towers fell

LOL. It's not like they didn't do that before huh?

Enough explosives for the equivalent of a controlled demolition? They would need to pretend that muslim fanatics got in with mini-nukes.

The remote control planes are far better as their too high for anyone to know what they really are; it's easier to get away with

actual non-kook historical knowledge and reasoning is not his strong point.

I haven't seen this before, the Manhattan Demolition Truck

They did. It didn't work. So 8 years later they used planes. :winkwink:

read what? your limited beany brain? sorry, i am visually impaired and very small brains are VERY HARD TO read :2 cents: ASK QUESTIONS - DEMAND ANSWERS :winkwink: where are your answers? you just spill the same shit the officials do ... no own opinion? shame ... keep living like a sheep and BELIEVE (believing means confessing you DONT KNOW!)

Yeah, it comes as a huge surprise that a company called Manhattan Demolition would have one of their trucks driving around in NYC that morning.

They don't "controlled demolitions". Instead, thy clean up demolition and construction sites. In fact, that's a garbage truck you see in that video.

Or you could have just said you disagree with my view :thumbsup

Maybe there was a demolition going on in the area that day, but we do have to consider all such possibilities to expose who else was involved :2 cents:

It's not about USA, it's about the Bankers/Globalists and which countries they have control of. It was the Bankers who wanted this, not the USA.

He always goes off to the shill sites and assumes they are correct, does a copy and paste, but then claims others aren't capable of critical thinking. Doesn't bother looking at more than a few seconds of the counter-evidence

I suspect he'll come around once he notices most other people have :2 cents:

Rochard, I do like the way that you take the time to give an answer to each point, while others who are incapable of debating the points go straight for the throat of the messenger :thumbsup

The other day I read your post about trusting the President. So let's say that the President was saying what MediaGuy has been saying, and MediaGuy was posting what we currently know as "The Official Story". If all the facts were the same as now, but the President said it was an inside job, would you change your stance?

It is first hand accounts of what people experienced that day who were there. You choose to not believe them? they went through it man! you got all your knowledge from fringe internet sources.

also the logo looks like a capital H to me representing the history channel. looks nothing like the two pillars you showed. Im not going to flame because you seem nice enough even though you are pushing a schizophrenic mindset, i just feel sorry because you are lost. good luck with your continuing battles against the forces of evil, we are all in the same fight.

whether it is a conspiracy or not... the reality and therefor the thuth is, we "normal" people will never know for sure...

so... back to minding my own business

now I will leave this tread as silently as I came in....

I'm fascinated by 9/11 and World War 2. I can debate both until I'm out of breath. I read a lot about both, mostly WW2. I just finished a book called Schindler's List; Seems there was a lot the movie failed to mention. I don't read about 9/11 as much, but I've read the 9/11 Commission Report, Debunking 9/11, and Debunking Dubunking 9/11. When this happened in 2001 I believe it at face value, and while I've read all about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I have yet to find anything that changes my opinion of what happened that day. We can debate how the towers fell until we are blue in the face but the truth is we'll never know.

Before I answer your question.... I former US Military, and the military "serves at the pleasure of the President". We don't serve Bush or Obama, the Democratic or Republican parties, but we we answer to whomever is President at that moment.

If the President Obama (or Bush for that matter) came out in the morning and said that 9/11 was done by the US Military, CIA, or Israel.... I have no idea if I would believe them or not.

There are too many holes in the conspiracy theories. Why would they have used airplanes at all - why not bomb them? If the airplanes were remote controlled from the ground, what happened to flight 93 in Shanksville? What happened to all of those people who got on those airplanes?

I do believe our government lies to us. You know JFK wasn't shot by a magical fucking bullet, and you know that Israel knowingly attacked a US Navy ship during the Six Day War. But I don't think they could lie about this. But I think there is a huge difference between telling a lie after the fact and intentionally causing an incident. In other words, Oswald set out to kill JFK but it was the Secret Service who shot and killed him. (In short... The Secret Service was heavily armed with sub machine guns, Oswald takes a pot shot, everyone grabs their weapons, and opps JFK was shot from behind.) The Secret Service didn't plan on killing JFK - it was an accident - but they covered it up by altering a few facts. Here with 9/11 the conspiracy theories say that this was intentionally done by the US Government as a pretext to build a pipeline in Afghanistan that still hasn't been built. But there is way too many things they would have to cover up and hide to pull this off.

They could have warned people it was going to happen instead of cheering as the towers came down and filming it as they DOCUMENT THE EVENT.

Seems as though they knew it was going to happen.

So the secret service accidently shot Kennedy in the commotion of Oswald's missed shot. That is a new one. Not saying you're wrong just hadnt heard that before.

Next time I am watching a JFK documentary, I'll look for that. I do seem to remember the agent was behind him.

Another theory that is pigshit.

Everyone wants to talk about jet fuel but they don't want to talk about WTC 7, the building that collapsed on it's own footprint that WASN'T HIT BY A PLANE.



And does no one have a problem with the CIA basically creating Al Qaeda during the cold war? American taxpayer's money went to fund the mujahideen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

I was talking about the core, which were largely uncompromised, at least not enough to explain full-body global collapse.

External columns were obviously breached and severed. Just not enough to explain such immense failure throughout the building.

The floor supports couldn't have all failed at once without some external agent - 75% of the building and more depending on which were structurally intact when the top-part/pile-driver started its descent. It's simple physics that the smaller part coming down - even if it was lifted a hundred feet in the air and then dropped - couldn't have demolished the structurally sound lower portion.

That's the whole point. The NIST report tries to explain WTC7 by saying that large chunks of the towers were flung out to smash into it but they never explain why those parts were able to travel so far and so fast. They also never explain the speed (they finally admitted to free fall for over 2 seconds because a high school physics teacher challenged one of their initial reports) or perfect symmetry of the WTC7 "collapse".

If there had been any tipping that would have made sense. There wasn't. Gravity can't allocate any reason for lateral dispersion of 20-tonne pieces. According to the videos these things flew upand out, and there weren't any structural supports following or tipping behind them to explain how the parts were lead there.

You have to zoom out a little in that observation - the 300 ton flloor isn't falling on a single floor - it's not a 50/50 equation. Some demolitions use this especially with concrete based buildings - cut out the middle section so the top half "falls" and crushes the lower half - but they don't do that with steel because of the rigidity of steel-frame building constuction.

Your 300 ton floor is falling on a construct of steel bracing made to withstand itself as well as support the upper third of the building (or quarter or what have you) let alone a single 300 ton floor.

You're also supposing that all support for the flloor gave out at once, which is outrageous unless they were made to fail via something like explosives.

On top of this, there were no concrete slabs remaining - the concrete was pulverized to dust. There are links and photos for panacake collapses and those always show stacks of the sort that didn't occur with the towers - and physics tell us that the flloors would not have been pulverized.

Even if they fell in 20 seconds (each!) the falls would have been suspicious.

I do hope some disclosure will eventually give us the truth about the WTC buildings. Have you read any of the material put out by David Griffin or the summary of the paper by Neils Harrit regarding the WTC dust?

Don't you find holes in the official version?!? It rings like a conspiracy theory in and of itself... and in fact any conspiracy "theory" is just a theory which means there will be unverifiable "holes" - which is why I prefer questions and facts. Stuff like the cell phone debunking (which can be explained if the supposed hijackers had a cellular transmitter in their luggage for example) and no-plane theories at the Pentagon are as much hot air as the official theory. Questions remain.

That's an interesting theory for the JFK thing. It took the service years to admit that Oswald was on their payroll, and it wasn't until the 70s that the government was forced to admit there was a second shooter that day in Texas (thus completely discrediting the Warren commission report), but I've never heard or considered the oopsie-daisy version.

But similarly the 9/11 commission refused to take much testimony into account and seemed to only publish or conclude things that supported their theory rather than follow up on things like reports of pre-impact explosions, "hijacker" connections to the FBI, Saudi connections and the money trail, among so many other things...

:D

But no. The perfect symmetry of the collapse and the free fall are not explained, among many other facts...



You're right - I was just trying to point out that the security for a potential pipeline was established.

Also,the benefits to the military economy are obvious. Also, the establishment of permanent military bases, the boots required for the war on Iraq and proposed/supposed war with Pakistan, all are established. Afghanistan is/was a strategic crux for many operations.

Where the US gets its oil is irrelevant since most world oil conglomerates have ties and interests with US politicians directly - if foreign oil were so irrelevant why would they have so many lobbyists in DC?

:D

Well if you're going this route, why not ask the same of "Al Qaeda"? I think it's a lot easier for them to use a bomb than spend months learning to fly planes and become so proficient they hit every target dead on.

BTW, is there a explanation why they went to the US, right under the noses of the FBI, to learn to fly? There are flight schools in every country on the planet where they could have learned before even entering the US.

I think, like patsies have in the past, they were leaving a breadcrumb trail for "investigators" to follow, which also included all those strip clubs, cocaine, booze and bimbos... weird stuff for muslims...

:D

The core was compromised at the moment of impact. Everyone saw this live on National TV - The planes entered one side, and flames came out the other side. It went through the building, and through the core. At the moment of impact most of the elevators failed, sending some down to the bottom floor, and also sending a huge fireball down to the lobby that killed people.

At some point in time, one of the floors failed and crashed down onto a floor below. The floor below was unable to instantly redistribute all of weight. The joints holding the floor were damaged by the impact, the fire, and the fact that the other shell was most likely bowing outwards.

Your saying it's impossible, and I'm telling you that when 300 tons of concrete and steel smash into another floor, it's gonna give way.

Why does it surprise you so much that "large chunks" were throw from the wreckage? You understand that when the building fell, the debris field was easily 600 feet, hitting other buildings including WTC 7? The entrance to WTC7 was destroyed by the debris field. Even though the towers fell straight down for the most part, when it hit the bottom it had no place to go but out.

You seem to obsessed by typing, and it's generally assumed that the towers fell straight down. I've said this myself in the thread here. However, Saturday afternoon I was watching MSNBC and they were replaying the entire morning as it happened live. And I noticed as one of the towers fell, the top tipped.

Check out this video at the 1:30 mark. Clearly the very top portion of the building tipped to one side as it fell.



At the same time, we can't really see a hole lot of the tower as it fell. We seem to accept to that the towers fell straight down, but between the flames from the fire, the cloud of dust from the building as it fell, and the dust from the bottom that rises up, we can't really see much.

If you take a pile of stones and drop them in one single file line at the same time, they aren't going to neatly land on top of each other. When they hit the ground they'll bounce and spread out. It's the same exact concept.


Your wrong. None of the floors support any of the floors above it. All of the floors are support by the outer walls and the inner core (both of which were comprised. The floors were suspended by the two. Each floor was meant to hold that floor and that floor only, and when the floor above it crashed down it wasn't able to support it.

No, not really. All of the holes you and others point out can be quickly explained away.

The 9/11 Commission interviewed over one thousand people in ten countries.

They didn't follow up with anything because they submitted their report. They weren't set up to continue to debate this issue - if they did, they would still be debating today.

Kennedy is another subject I'm into.

Oswald, for his own reasons, went to shoot Kennedy. He took a few pot shots and missed. This explains the bullet on the curb. Once shots were fired, all of the Secret Service members pulled out their weapons. The "magic bullet" that killed Kennedy came from behind him, which was impossible to have been fired by Oswald. So, look at what's directly behind Kennedy: A car full of well armed Secret Service members.

They pull out their weapons, one fires by mistake, hits the president in the back of the head.

The Secret Service and the powers that be decide it's much better for history to tell us that a lone gunman killed Kennedy instead of saying the Secret Service killed him by accident.

The difference here is that only a handful of people had to cover this up - a handful of secret service agents and a few doctors. Also, they were covering up a mistake and the American people benefited from it. It's not like they were lieing to cover up the deaths of three thousand innocent Americans.

I don't think one would have to be so proficient at flying an airplane that it would be difficult to hit a huge building. If you know the basics, you can fly airplane.

Now that's a good question.

A quick search tells me that their are flight schools all around the world that will teach people how to fly large jet airliners.

My answer would be cost and logistics. It would be quicker, easier, and less expensive to do everything in the US as opposed to sending people to Germany, setting them up there for six months to learn flying, and then moving their entire base of operations to the US.

Then again you could argue they could have done the flight training in any country and then taken international flights into NYC and what not.

Who knows.

Consider the amount of people carried out the whole attack? Thousands? No, only a few.

Damn, there's a bunch of scientists on this board that can explain every situation and include every variable of the known universe to support their brilliant theories. Impressive.

So we need degrees to discuss general facts?

btw your freehost is making your sig a red-x. You should fix that.

:D

Well the WTC were gigantic, even compared to a large aircraft, so hitting one of the towers, okay, plausible. Hitting both? I'm willing to accept that's possible too, though the odds are astronomically higher.

But the Pentagon too? You know, I'd still possibly be willing to swallow the blue pill if the 'plane' had hit it from above, even though I think that too would be extremely difficult, even for an experienced pilot. But it was hit from the side. Like they just 'drove' up.

I find it unbelievable that anyone, let alone relative 'amateurs', could fly a plane along the ground in a city for any length of time and also right into their intended target, dead on.

And it's a huge building, why did they go for its smallest, most difficult to hit, point? It's less than 80ft high. It's like choosing to hit the roof of the WTC towers rather than the side.

It's just something that always bugged me and I'd never seen anyone raise the question why they'd do it that way (supposedly), so I assumed there might be a good explanation why they did it. But I just can't see any reason at all why if you're going to commit a major criminal operation in an 'enemy' country, you would go to that country one second before you had to. Every minute spent in the USA put their plans at risk of exposure.

The reason Media Guy gave, as with many other 'conspiracy' explanations, unfortunately makes more sense than any 'official' version of events.

The only part of the plane that could have compromised the core was the engines. The engines only severed a few of the fifty or so columns in the core or the building. We saw fuel ignited outside the building which also suntracts from the idea that all that fuel caused internal damage since it burned outside the shell of the buildings.

Regardless, the lower floor would not cave in less than a tenth of a second. The 100 stories fell in ten seconds,which mean about ten floors per second. Ten floors in one second! That's impossible.

Stating things like "most likely" bowing out is also purely speculative. There's no indication of that.

These pieces were hurled from the top, and weren't pushed by falling or tipping parts of the structure. If the collapse was genuinely gravity driven how could large portions be sent out so far?

Yes the top part for the first tower to fall tipped... so why didn't it end up on the ground? Instead it was reduced to powder like the rest of the building... how did that happen?

We can't see much of the end of the falls true, but do we need to? Just seeing what there is to be seen tells us that the collapses weren't normal or attributable to regular sources.

Read the building collapse reports; they don't support your belief. Yes the floor suspension conception was an innovative approach to steel frame building construction but they didn't contribute to the building's "weakness" as you suggest.

The "holes" can be rationalized away but no explained. Your holes can just as eaily be refuted.

The 9/11 commission excluded or omitted two thirds of its collected data, from what we can see from witness reports, much of it because it simply didn't follow their theory - which is what it was, since even the FBI have admitted they don't have the proof to attribute 9/11 to Bin Laden.

MediaGuy and I have been chatting on ICQ and he tells me he's out of coffee and and misses the rush of our debate and begged me to respond.... So here goes.

While eating breakfast this morning I was watching CNN and they interviewed a guy who was above the impact zone. He said that at the moment of impact the floor dropped ten feet. I think a huge airplanes went through the towers, and totally violated the cores. Remember, the core of the towers weren't solid - that's where the elevators were located. One of the elevator shafts had a fireball send down it and that exploded in the lobby at the bottom level.

I think the plane sliced through the concrete and steel there.

I don't know where you get "a tenth of a second from". I posted a video earlier that showed it took at least 15 seconds, but that's debatable because we can't really see what inside before we saw visual proof of what was happening outside - meaning, the floors might have been falling already before we saw this on the outside.

I don't know where you getting "hurled" from. When the towers were done falling we had a huge debris field that was more than six hundred feet long. The building fell down, but as it hit the button it had no place to go but out.

The full commision report interviewed 1200 people in ten countries and reviewed nearly three million pages of documentation. Of course there are reports that information was omitted or even ignored - mostly because none of it can be verified. There's also the fact that the information related to 9/11 was staggering. Things got lost in the mix. This is to be expected when your talking about interviewing thousands of people and millions of documents.

They traced the terrorists right back to their homes and their connection to al qaeda.

And yet at the same time, there is so much the conspiracy theories miss.

For example... CIA director George Tenet had a meeting with Condoleezza Rice where he told her there was specific threat coming form al qaeda targeted at the US.

And then at a certain point you can poke holes in everything just by seeding doubt in the official story. There was tens of thousand of people there on site that day, all of them with different stories. Why was there explosions in the basement of WTC7 shortly after impact? Sounds horrible, but maybe it was completely unconnected to 9/11. Why was there helicopters flying around the wtc shortly before the crashes? Is it even really suspect that there was helicopters flying on a business day in one of the largest cities in the world? Why was there a second plane over Shanksville that morning? Is it really hard to believe that with fourteen thousand flights over the US at any given moment that two of them could be seen from Shanksville?

Someone in this thread posted a video of a demolition truck in NYC shortly after the crash. Looks really odd... But clearly there are dozens of demolitions companies in NYC, if not hundreds - so it makes perfect sense that a truck was driving around in NYC that morning.

Everything has a logical explanation. And you try to poke holes at anything.

Dude, they don't. The collapsing, especially the start of it, is different. You can see that on the thousands of available videos. The first tower that collapsed you see that it really breaks and start to reach over. The whole part from impact to top stays intact for a few seconds. The second tower drops down from the inside, top down.

Also, the idea of falling "symmetrically into it's own footprint" is just not true. If that was really the case then there would not have been so much damage on all the buildings around it. Sure, they fall down, as not over. But really look at the videos for one moment and really try to see what's happening. It's not that "perfect" as people may tell you. What bothers me is that the two towers do not come down as if it's a demolished building, but many people will tell you that because they have building 7 in mind as well. Building 7 is a different story, you can argue about that (just pure about the comparison of collapsing buildings). But the collapse of building 7 was again totally different then both towers.

I don't mind if you feel it's suspicious. Good for you because I do not believe everything that was written and said. But using a bit common sense makes a lot more clear.

True, but what does it matter? It doesn't make a plane impact differently. The video that is available shows an airplane.