Every building is designed or not designed to fall behind the path of less resistance instead of the major one, phisics laws tell us it's a demolition, there's nothing to do.
I have the answer! The USA is the only place in the world where concrete/steel frame building turn to dust before even hitting the ground. CHECK EVERY 9/11 VIDEO YOU SEE. The buildings were turning to dust before they even hit the ground. lol ...and Building 7? lol Looks like the US Gov. is trying to sell you a bridge. lol
Someone explain to me if these are actually explosion's how these tiny itlle explosions helped the building fall at all. It not like there was something weakening the steel, Ohh wait these were fucking airliners carrying thousands of pounds of fuel. That fuel burns really hot, and really fast. You can have all the conspiracy theories you want about who planned 911, but those planes were more than enough to bring down those buildings.
@seeknthetruth I'm fully awake, and of course they could, you, on the other hand, have no idea how demolitions work. Random squibs could cause the building to fall randomly, and could also cause it to not fully fall down, leaving a fraction of the building to still be standing. You're the one who needs to wake up, stop feeding everyone your crackpot autistic theories.
considering that fire has NEVER TOTALLY collapsed a steel high rise before or after 911, i can really see your logic here. here it is. youre either or planted shill or a moron. which is it? choose wisely?
@seeknthetruth That's because there has never been a huge fire plus the impact of a plane destroying the support beams crash into a building of that size. And fuck, your English is shit, wtf does "you're either or planted shill or a moron" mean? Where the fuck is your logic, you people think that the planes were just animations. Fuck, you people are so insipid, it makes me laugh. Where exactly did you go to college?
read this carefully: you are either a government plant or a moron. is that japanese to ya? a plane didn't hit wtc7 and it collapsed in exactly the same manner as the towers. do you remember that? no? two impacts=three steel high rise collapses. really? how's your math since you have a problem with simple english? it doesn't get any more obvious. can you earn your government check somewhere else?
@seeknthetruth The North (or south, idk) Demolished the south side of WTC7. Have you ever worked in demolition, because I have, and that's not how you take down buildings. What you saw was the outer shell of the building come down, what authority do you have to make such claims anyways.
ok, when the north tower collapsed, wtc7 was only damaged on one side and fell straight down and folded like a deck of cards. ever heard of the path of least resistence moron? no? meanwhile, wtc6 was in between wtc7 and the north tower, never collapsed and had to be demolished later. here's a serious question. do you have a brain? that's my authority.
As they collapsed the air trapped inside spurted out - the comparrisions to demolished bldgs wasnt even close..no they didnt fall in on its self. no there were no series of visible bombs blowin up,,just air escaping. you are the dumbest fucks ive ever seen. im sorry but i thought ive seen some stupids in my time you take the freak-cake. congrats to ya. your own so called proof proves you is a stupid ass. you have eyes right-get them connected to your tiny brain..
Yea thats cool, the one person who finnally has the balls to attack terrorism is of all things acused of bein one, and a natzi. I guess the only other thing you people get good ball-bustin entertainment from this. May God have Mercy on you all.
Read the Boston Globe article about a tanker truck that caught fire underneath a highway overpass in Connecticut back in 2004. Pay special attention to the second page.
there was no demolition. there where two planes. the reason the towers stood so long from that kind of beating it that the towers where desighned to avoid progressive colapse. when the out side walls failed it left the tower is free fall because the internal sructure was compramised by the planes. and those "squibs" are the air compression blowing out windows. conspacy nuts are so funny.
Haha, you are not very popular on youtube are you Mr wkwickham. Have you seen the comments about you on your profile? You have nothing of interest I wish to hear. The rest of the world sees something that you can't even see on your doorstep. Thank god not all Americans are like you. they see it too.
lovely - so 14-15 yr old conspiracy nuts hate me - so what - yet nobody can put just a single common sense motive on here that makes sense - just a bunch of loonie rants with no evidence
loonie rants, lol. Your eyes are so closed. No-one hates you, why should they? On YouTube, there is no point getting angry with a person if they do not see things clearly. That is why others try to show you the truth. Sometimes the truth is too horrible to contemplate, so a person makes excuses for the horror. There is lots of evidence, all you need to do is see it, althoough some people just can't, because the facts are too horrific.
except there are no facts on your side oh wise one with eyes open - lets see the towers were knocked down to start a war for oil which we havent got yet or to avoid an abestos cleanup - lets see, you have no motive, no witnesses - not even one whistle blower from multiple demolition teams - no evidence - no chemical residue - you have nothing oh "wise" one
I have commom sense, and I work with facts. We don't need to be 'wise' to see what your government did to you. There IS intelligent life outside of the USA, y'know.
By the way, explain why you said "...which we havent got yet." Aparently, your government is not interested in the oil....are they?
You just can't handle the truth because (quite rightly) it frightens you because you love your country. That's not a bad thing, I love England, and I hate what my government do to it too.
people that say this war is fought for oil - where is the "free" oil flowing into and where? - for the war to be fought for oil - we would need to be stealing, looting it - yet its not happening - with free oil, politicians would be using that to lower oil prices to improve reelection chances - yet oil continues to climb - no free oil then the war wasnt fought for oil - so the point is false - my wise comment was sarcasm
pretty extreme - we'd agree on one thing - the sooner america gets away from oil the better - all we are doing is making the people who hates us filthy rich
Well yes, your troops could go home and stay alive, because at the moment there are good guys dying over there so that other people can get rich.
Personally, I like most Americans, they are cool, but I hate what your government has done to you guys. The government makes $billions out of war, so it is strategic to sacrifice it's people to get the money.
i realize that we are not we liked in the world community and i regret that - but 911 changed a lot of our ideas about this and i know i am less concerned about that and more about the consistent pursuit of islamic fascists - at any war in history, there will be some who make big money of supplying wars - that does not mean logically that those people did this - that is an illogical leap - the govt itself hasn't made jack, in fact it has gone into huge debt over this - so that is incorrect
I don't think the world hates you guys, it just hates your leaders because your leaders hurt you. We have nothing against ordinary American folk. I saw the extreme courage and bravery of your American Firefighters in 911 videos. The bravery was unsurpassed. I sat speechless at their extreme courage. So no, the world doesn't hate ordinary Americans.
well we're kinda screwed now - this whole thing started with israel and our leaders before i was born decided to go along with this - i'd say most of us feel that was a mistake now but what are ya gonna do? kick millions of jews out in some genocide? there is no real way out of this problem - yet us normal guys were murdered and killed on 911 for what? i'm at the point where i'd like us to become isolationists again but 911 also showed that we cant ignore these fascists anymore either
I reckon it's not too late to change back to being isolationists, it just needs enough good guys over there to make it happen. Don't give up hope, dude :-)
how the conspiracy kooks explain this is that one of the bush family used his security company to plant bombs all over the place - and Larry S hired the saudi pilots - oh but there is no video of any demolition explosions or sounds of such and all they got is some video of dust being pushed out windows - OH Nor do they have any motive for any of this - just a driving hatred for Bush and the US govt - so therefore, with no motive, Bush did all of this along with a hurricane cause he's evil - hmmm
thehubisshit is right, we won't definently know for sure what the cause is until someone deep inside the system comes out and blows the cover, kinda of like deepthroat and nixon except thousands of people died with 9/11.
this is a daft argument........neither of the sides will convince the other and it'll never ever be solved beyond reasonable doubt. like the moon landings etc etc
I'm not saying it's a government conspiracy, I'm not a Loony, but it makes sense, people blow up their vehicles everyday and say someone stole it, so they can get money, there was motive, he was told that the building would have to be updated which would cost in the billions as far as I remember, wouldn't you blow up the buildings, and then place "Put Options" on the stock. it's genius, basically he knew he it was going to happen, and bet that it was, and made money that way. Smart Man
You people are Blind,, how does concrete jet out a building like that when nothing has hit it, you can clearly see, how much space is between the area that is collapsing and the explosions. use your brain people, it's a simple insurance claim, lol, on a bigger scale, and then Silverstein placed "Put Options" on United Airlines and American Airlines stock, and made a lot of money that way, it's brilliant I wish I thought of it, if I had no morals.
those 'put options' you are talking about were traced back to the CIA,and calling the truthers looneys just shows your frustration in believing your own government could be so diabolically corrupt,do some research on the bush family alone and its enough to raise your eyebrows, at the very least, the administration knew the planes were coming and purposely let it happen, not to mention WTC7 falling in in 6.5 seconds,which is impossible without the use of explosives, BUSH IS GUILTY OF HIGH TREASON
I'm going to explain something. The concrete floors were falling faster than the rest of the building. The "squibs" are merely evidence of air escaping that has been compressed by the falling floors. Tall buildings are designed to collapse as vertically as possible, demolition or no demolition.
oh and i have another thing to say all these conspiricy ass holes who say that jet liner feul doesnt burn steel, well ok thats true it doesnt, but when they sya it doesnt burn steel they mean to a molten steel, jet liner feul doesnt liquify steel but it sure as heel weekens it and with hundreds of thousands of building sitting on a few firey hot beems, its bound to fall
this video is very illogical...you are claiming 1 squib every 10 stories is enough to bring down the building...even if that was true, you guys are still complaining about how the buildings could withstand a jumbo jet traveling at 500 mph loaded with fuel...large plane with fuel cant bring down a building, but a small explosion every 100 ft can?
There was only 56 minutes from time of impact to the collapse (South Tower). So, it took jet fuel only 10 minutes to ignite theses items? Meanwhile, ppl are walking to the impact over/through/around this heat that is hot enough to weaken steel? Also, there were many accounts of explosions being heard (and felt) in places like the basement levels. How? Then, throw in the extreme temps/molten metal found in the basement. Was this caused burning desks and paper 80 or more floors up?
the people arent walking around right in the middle of the impact point, they are at the very bottom of the impact zone where the heat is probly not that bad...you bring up an example of 1 or 2 people standing at the very bottom of the impact zone where its not that hot, so may i bring up the 200 or so people who jumped from the towers due to extreme heats that the human body cannot stand?
The ppl that were at the impact hole had to walk through the path of the plane. The plane (parts, fireball) exitted through the other side of the building. The impact hole was initial point of the collapse. So, the steel had to be weakened at this location by this so-called heat. But, they were ppl standing at the impact hole. It doesn't add up.
200 ppl? Where did you get that number from? What about the many ppl waving from the smoke filled windows? It is wrong to assume that heat was only factor causing the ppl to jump.
well i doubt theres any other reason, but i assume the next load of bullshit to come around from u conspiracy theories is that "the people who jumped were actually pushed out by govt agents, who then ziplined to safety before collapse according to this video" (show some BS video) etc etc
(Toxic) smoke inhalation is one reason. Reaction to the explosions could be another. So, in the 56 minutes from time of impact to collapse, when was this heat created? Was it before or after ppl were walking to the impact hole, and waving from smoke filled windows?
ok, lets say there were explosives...would you know how much would be needed to bring down a building that size from the top down? a bottom-up demolition uses the buildings own weight to bring it down...a top-down demolition doesnt have any weight above to bring down a building...you would need to blast away every section individually, therefore there shouldve been thousands of more "squibs"
think about it this way...get some blocks, and make a 5x5 base and 20 blocks high, using 500 blocks...with a normal demolition smack away the base and the rest of the blocks will tumble down...but to demolish from the top is different...you would have to knock away 1 cube at a time, 500 seperate "explosions", numerous simlutanious squibs blowing out on every side of the building...that wasnt seen at the WTC site was it...besides do you know how long it would take to set up that many explosives?
WOW...only about 15 small explosions were needed per tower for them to totally collapse? a normal building 5 times smaller would need about 20 times more explosives...that sure adds up...since you know SOOOO MUCH about the explosives, would you mind telling me...
1. who planted them
2. who detonated them
3. why were so little explosives needed to bring down two of the tallest buildings in the world...wouldnt they need hundreds of times more explosives than that??
1 and 2. Only the one who committed these acts can answer that. 3. The real question should be how can a plane impact and relatively small fires bring down two of the tallest buildings in the world? Next explain WTC7? Small fires limited to only one of side of the building and the building crumbles to dust?
thanks for not answering my questions first of all, why should i answer yours? but i will anyways because i have the answers...first of all the fires werent small, or else there would have been very little smoke, people wouldnt have beem jumping from the buildings, and everyone from the stories above the impact would have been able to make it down...second, the fires at WTC7 were very intense, but obviously you havent seen pictures of the side of the building that was actually damaged
take a look at where the smoke is pouring out of...its coming out EVERYWHERE, which shows almost every floor has some damage...it could be that there are dying fires which create a lot of smoke on other floors that werent badly damaged, but not much of the building is visible, so how do you know there arent larger fired hidden in the smoke?
Look at the history. Black smoke and an open air fire have never caused a steel high rise to collapse before or after 911. Do you find it odd that this occurred three times on 911? Even a little?
were many supports broken away by some sort of collision with the building in any other righ rise fire?...just because a building has fire doesnt mean that it can be totally comparable to any other building that has had fire before...there are numerous differences that set them apart which make the outcome different as well
I knew Guiliani was sleazy when he was running for mayor. I couldn't have guessed he would stoop so low. I should have, though, because he attended the SEMENary.
Hey Loser, have you bothered to check out the tanker fire that melted a chunk of an overpass just east of the Bay Bridge eastern span? It was a regular tanker with fuel. No explosives, no squibs, or precuts to make this a plant by the government. It melted the bolts right off the span that was on fire. I could give a fuck about your spoon.
who's this wanker talkin about spoons??? take the spoon and shove it up your hoop! And your version of events ignors ALL laws of physics. Try thinkin about what your eyes see and not the bull shit your being LED to believe.
Physics? You mean how the WTC collapsed at near free fall speeds or how the collapse is falling faster than the debris (gravity)? Is that the bloody physics you are talking about?
again u beleive this crap the building fell do to extensive heating for what an hour straight what happens when u burn a spoon on a stove it bends the building gave in and fell by it self what u think someones gonna whalts in there with dynomite strapped on and say yah u guys r out of luck were gonn blow this shit up and were gonna walk out like nothing happened
You can may call me a shill again, but hurt your own cause when you spew out wild accusation out like that. I contend that Americans would be willing to hear 9/11 conspiracy folks if the claims weren't so outlandish... I can only think of two or three people that do your side justice. You hurt your own agenda by revealing that this is really about the politics of an ingrained distrust of the government. This has nothing to do with 9/11 at all. It just serves as a podium for Alex Jones types.
The left hand didn't know what the right was doing. A few private security managers knew to ignore the call and evacuated there employees without conferring with the WTC Security. But, as far as the average person knew these buildings were not going to come down and the firefighters would put out the blaze. The WTC 2 people felt they were safe. Why not go back to your desk. In retrospect, this was a terrible call made by the WTC people and hindsight is always 20/20.
The bottom line for me is that I have yet to find an anti-conspiracy theorists(for lack of a better word)with PhD or without, that can logically and scientifically explain these two events 1. The WTCs collapsed at near free fall speeds. 2. The speed at which the WTC collapsed was faster than the debris falling (or gravity) which is shown at frame 00:27 of the video above.
Conspiracy folk keep grabbing on to this call for occupants to return to their desks. Every little thing has to be part of some great plot. For those us of that had family there that day, we can defiantly draw that no one knew what the hell happened in the first few minutes. A handful had seen the first plane, but most people didn't and had assumed some major bomb or missile had hit... No one imagined a plane could just hit a building when the air traffic goes the other direction.
seriously, someone who has way to much time & money on their hands needs to build a 110 stry twr blow the top/mid section and let it burn let's see if it falls in less than 15 seconds as well i still don't get how the 75' fire burned for 3 hours & caused no serious structural damage to the structure & no trusses needed to be replaced
Absolute bullshit. You assume that damage and debris was contained before the fall to the areas only in the impact zone. What a crock. Furthermore, what makes a furnace hot? Air and fuel. What do you think in a high rise the big gaping holes would do? Funnel air to create a super heated environment. Too many variables have to be 100% right to make your theory plausible.
BS? I'm not assuming anything. But, starting with frame 00:28 of the video above, it is pretty clear the collapse is moving faster than the debris (or gravity). That's impossible unless something is influencing the collapse. Molten metal? Massive steel thrown 400ft? Free fall speeds of the WTC? Eyewitness accounts of explosions? Pulverized concrete? Explanations? I'd like to hear them.
If the heat was hot enough to weaken steel, why were many ppl waving from these smoke filled windows. Search Edna Cintron. Jet fuel at its max temp can't melt steel. So, what's left to burn; carpets, computers, desks, and other office items. So this is what created this intense heat that was hot enough to weaken the steel by 50%, but not harm the ppl in close proximity to it??? Jet fuel can't melt steel, so what is this molten metal discovered in the basements?
there were people evacuating passing those fires stanley and brian, edna-not burned there were people trapped above making 911 calls even up until the very second it collapsed, they weren't burning alive yes it was hot & they said that but obviously not BLAZING STEEL MELTING/STEEL WEAKENING hot what do you think has more tolerance to heat human flesh or steel remember the fire of 75' in the north tower, i didn't think so
I looked into this Pro.Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl since he made his proposed modifications to the Eastern span of the Bay Bridge. At no point has ever claimed that there was a demolition. He even had a an chance to voice any concerns at the The House Commitee he spokee in front years ago.
The "evidence" here is poor and way of in trying to prove this "squib" theory. Most of the explosives going off in the real demolitions are used to start the collapse of the mass above to came straight down. This is done to use the mass to do the work with little stain on the workers to use more explosive and cutting. The WTC towers had already started their way down when we see these explosions.
PH and ishmaiden. One question: Do you see that the demolition wave or collapse is falling faster than the debris (gravity) starting with frame 00:28 of this video? If you answered yes, that's impossible without external forces (CD) acting upon it.If you answered no, please look again and immediately drive yourself to the nearest eye doctor.
See, this is the exact same smugness I'm talking about. The fact of the matter is that no one had ever seene two buldings over 1362 and 1368 ft. tall come down in such a fashion. 9/11 "truthers" always use this tone of talk when confronting those who don't buy into it for one minute. Are there questions? Yes. Does everyone buy the 9/11 report from 2004? Of course not. That's one of the tricks. "truthers" prey on this and somehow give people the "answer" that the government did it.
The biggest thing I would point is the impact on the south tower and it's corner members facing the East River. Let's say there was a pod on the plane and it hit at an akward angle. The blast blows out numerous support beams, as we see in the videos, setting off the initial explosion. You mean to tell me that planted explosives can withstand the force being administered and also survive the heat to still function without any of them going off uncontrolled.
Throw into the mix molten metal found in the basements of the North, South and WTC7. Many eyewitness accounts of pre-collapse explosions, some actually injuring ppl. 600,000 pound steel thrown 400ft and concrete and much of the building's contents pulverized to fine dust. Then I ask myself, can a plane impact,fire and a building collapse accomplish of these things alone? Can CD explosives generate this kind of heat and massive energy to expel steel and pulverize building materials?
Not only that, You'd still have to ensure the plane hits dead on where these things are planted. The south tower collapses in the direction of the Northeastern corner that was severly compromised after taking the blow. You have to be asking more than a miracle to make sure these explosives would still go off at this exact same point. Truthers could try to say that these were pre weakened, but something like that would be impossible to avoid seeing.
I point to science and logic when dealing with the "strange" aspects of the 911. Free fall speeds of the WTC, demolition wave (collapse) falling faster than the debris or gravity. These two points are unexplainable (and scientifically impossible) if the official story is the only "theory" on the plate.
You may call me what you wish. My feelings could take such a hit. My only problem would be the translation for a term we use in Spanish. I mean, I could try it english, but something get's lot and it would require me knowing you're mother . . . it's just a bigger mess.
Again with this? If you looked at the whole collapse, not just the outer wall, you'd see large portions of the cores still standing for a good amount of time. these portins are large enough to be seen in highrise video from mid-town Manhattan.
Ok, the outer wall collapsed at free falling speeds. But, it doesn't matter if the TV antenna fell at free falling speeds, it is still scientifically impossible. How do you even get past that logically?
Ok, school me then. You tell me how one could plant explosives in a high rise that would have to withstand a precise hits twice. Maybe you can also tell me how these explosives could stand the heat and not go off in a uncontrolled fashion. To make this thing go you would still need an extensive amount of "gutting" going on. Precuts, removal of materials, cables to running to the "squibs" near pre-weakend members. Unless you wanna claim a remote did it?
Just MY theory here: The building would have to be completely wired so the impact point did not matter at all. This would also explain how portions of the building ABOVE the impact point "instantly" turn into dust as the building collapsed. There was no force acting upon those undamaged floors, so it's a mystery how this happened unless explosives were used.
There was no force acting upon those undamaged floors? Really? Oh that's right, you're the one that thinks the kinetic energy just somehow vaporized. There was tremendous downward force of the top of the building on each lower floor. "Wiring" the whole building would have been impossible to conceal.
Also, I can't see gravity, compressed air or KE having enough force to project a 600,000 pound chunk of WTC steel 400ft. I think we both agree on that....I hope. There wasn't the heat that you're assuming, otherwise we wouldn't see many ppl (like Edna Cintron) waving from the windows where the fires were supposedly hot enough to weaken steel.
You can't "see" it because you don't want to understand it. I've referred you to this paper on the kinetic energy which you've chosen to ignore but have been unable to cite any errors in. Who says there wasn't high temp levels in the towers? Why do you think the fires had to be uniform? Maybe they'd already spread when Cintron arrived.
There were many accounts of explosions in the basement and sub-basement levels before the actual collapse to pre-weaken the structure. View my video, "Evidence of Explosives used at WTC? " for direct evidence of these explosions. Also, this would explain the molten metal found in the basements of all three buildings. This demolition was unique in that it was an explosion instead of an implosion so removal of materials has no impact on the actual collapse.
How do explosions in the basement bring down a building from the top down? Especially explosions that happen well in advance of the collapse and cause no apparent structural weakening? Molten metal was also reported in WTC 6 & no on claims explosives were used there. There is no evidence of any explosive demolition. You're making it all up by ignoring the engineers, demo experts, & others who know better than you.
You know what else is funny about this video? How they say the "tornado effect" and the strong shockwave that came off the collapse. Its funny how they try to pin it on the "Massive explosions" that could have only done that.
I have seen real footage of explosives being used and the shockwaves are momentary, and they dont continue to travel out so far away. Now, a snow avalanche can do the same thing. A strong wind, tornado effect that can sweep you off your feet has also happened with avalanches, which is exactly what was happening durng the collapse. All of that debris crashing down falling hundreds of feet will create the same effect. Simple physics and common sense can disprove many of these conspiracies!
PH, Keep your reports. PH and GenCrazyIvan , do me a favor.View my "Evidence of Explosives used at WTC?" video posted and tell me how this is possible. I really like to hear your logic. This is not someone's opinion, or some biased report. This is actual video evidence directly from CNN. Meet you there?
Thank you! You said more about this then I ever could. I may not be a physics guy, but I did pick a few things about explosives and bringing things down from my father and his service experience. There would be a sequence of explosiions from the lower floors and would go first. Not the other way around. Plus, that kind of work doesn't get done in a building that size without months of work setting this up.
ishmaiden, you're right that standard approach to demolition is to take out the base, not the top first. These conspiracy nuts think each floor was blown out sequentially downwards. Since we see no structural weakening before the collapse wave arrives, that means the columns of each floor had to be blown up at the very nanosecond that the collapse wave arrived at that floor. Completely & utterly implausible.
ur right that's the STANDARD but does the world always work on standard standard is to get good grades standard is to be w/ the opposite sex standard planes arent disc shape or go mach 7 but you have the x43 the silver bug project the avro aircraft if they wanted to they could blow out fl 3 then 24 the base then 6 30 15 its not a law of physic that u can only blow a twr from the bottom up are u saying its not possible to blow a twr like that thats what youre claiming right its not possible
Plus those "squibs" would not be shooting out such a big constant stream of dust and debris. Only highly compressed air from the force of a massive collapse can do something like that! Plus the extra compressed air would also force the chunks of the building farther away during the pancake effect.
we've all seen the ending pics, dust and rubble how is it that all that broken up mass still had the energy force to reduce the 60 undamaged flrs to basically nothing? we all see the S twr leaning & crumbling, with BIG chunks falling to the street so that weights off the structure, what's demolishing the building?
Another thing is if you're gonna try to call some one stupid, you should atleast talk to firefighters who've worked with this kind of work. My lady's father is a battalion captain who's made visits to OK City and Manhattan. If I don't know the answer, I look to the people that do. These people would be up in a frenzy if they even suspected a controlled demolition. They didn't come from the bottom up and they these "blasts" are supposed to be in a chain before intial collapse. Not after.
Next, you're gonna come up with the WTC people who say they could take multiple hits via airplanes. I don't care how well designed a skyscrapper is, you take that kind of damage and expect it survive. Then you're gonna bring Up the Madrid Windsor Manor and other notable fires and plane crashes. The only problem is they still had the fireproofing, were not nearly the same scale of plane, and the design were totally different.
On the decoration, of course these things were serving a function. But, even with bands and bolts connecting the outside, you still need to connect them to the core. These things sway with tropical storm winds at 1368Ft and have to take the strain like any other highrise. They weren't the end all, however you can't tell me that any wall mesh will stand freely and not give.
You people do this constantly. Ten years ago I would have been with you on this. The only problem is you're stretching and you revealed what you are. Another "Bush is Dumb and evil" poster that has litered the web. I hate Bush, But this man could scrw up a cup of coffee.I don't figure Bush would skillfully pull of 9/11 to not also set up WMD's in Iraq. Unless I'm being gullible.
Ok, let the smugness begin. The notion of the floors did notion for the overall structure is not true. Yes, they did't share the load like the core and the walls, but they did function in keeping those walls from pulling away from the building. some floors could go down, but that wall isn't going to stay up with out it. Not with a giant hole from one side to the other.
The squib theory is a joke! It doesn't follow a controlled demolition pattern. Those collapses start from the bottom going upward. This wasn't the case. We've seen the same kind of thing with the Waco nuts that swear that they saw flame throwers and they have the video proof. Anybody would know that such a massive load coming down would blast out all kinds of air towards the bottom.
You're not going say this is due to compressed air? Please. Did you know that during the collapse, a 600,000 pound chuck of steel was thrown 400 ft at a neighboring building? Was that compressed air also?
Yes I do know that there were enormous amounts of debris that struck other buildings. My family lives there and my cousin was just a few blocks south of the complex. My father was also a 22 year vet and had hands experince with explosives and demolitions. He'd be the first one to tell you that an "inside job' is a logistical nightmare. The amount of precutting, stratigic placement of the explosives, ensuring that they also survived impact and fires, then timing them to go off?
And, before I hear that "secret evacuations" about pre-9/11, I'd remind people that was warnings the previous week about threats to Americans overseas and at high risk areas. It was on the major networks the weekend before. We had the COlE the previous year and th'93 bombing. I would eb shocked if they didn't do drills.
why were they evacuating most of the other WTC's 7 is a big one to bring up but telling WTC 2 to go back your building is secure? they had "secret" evacs, they knew they were targets but when it's life and death they all the sudden forget and it's stay put even though the building next to you is on fire with a plane in it
this is really interesting, and i am just learning about this POV today. i have a question. couldn't the "squibs" have been debris being forced through air/elevator/etc shafts via the massive compression from above? some vids give both sides, but not on the squibs. maybe that's cuz there isn't another side...
don't forget stanley primath??? and brian clark stanley was at the impact zone (south tower) and brian was above they were in those raging hot fire zones hot enough to weaken steel but not human flesh
I totally agree. Logically, it doesn't make sense to see Edna Cintron waving at the plane impact hole if there were raging fire hot enough to weaken steel as the official story states.
If the planes had impacted more toward the very top, then full collapses would have been less likely. Yes, the current political leaders in the U.S. cannot be trusted, but I won't blame them for 911 until I see facts. So far, I've only seen questions and speculation.
source?
and Fact: larry silverstein leased the building 6 weeks before collapse
and whole terrorist scene, "lets get osama!" thats more than speculation
cc40TX, I think you're right that if the planes had hit on say, the 108th floor, its more likely that the 107th floor would have been able to withstand the force of a 3-floor mass.
muzic, since we're back to talking about some things with each other, I'd like to bring up some things that ended abruptly. You once said molten steel was found at ground zero 8 weeks after 911. Do you still believe that and belive that explosives kept the steel in a molten form? If you do, can you back it up? It was left hanging before.
I did look it up and you got it wrong. Plus, you've once again ignored the kinetic energy. And you keep ignoring the scientific papers I've provided. Why don't you provide some scientific papers that support your contentions?
Conveniently moving to another subject, aren't we? Show me where the data is wrong. I hope it's not that same page. This is a merry-go-round. I already addressed KE. Only when there is ZERO resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. As you know, there was a boat-load of resistance with the collapse of the WTCs and temps above 1100F (WTC basement)is alot of energy transferred.
Now, unlike me, you never give references to sites where you're getting your "information." Here's a paper that calculates the collapse times at 12.6 seconds for WTC 1 and 11.5 seconds for WTC 2 (slower than freefall). It applies the correct seismic data. w w w 911myths*com/WTCREPORT.pdf Which site did you get your collapse times from?
There is a series here on YouTube called something like "The 9/11 newsreport you never saw". It's Canadian, and therefore not slanted (Like the US media). Six parts. Lots of facts. Check it out.
(3 buildings) were all destroyed in one day? Well if you support the fire collapse claim, you are to explain why the Towers "collapse" like a matchstick burning, and why building 7 looks like a demolition. Explain to me why building 7 does not do the matchstick effect. After all they did Both descend down due to Fire.
Poetry hound, if your beleif and every other americans belief is that all buildings, WTC buildings that collapsed fell due to fire, due to terroristic attacks,
Reassured that the buildings were covered for this kind of damage of sorts..
Is the FDNY lying when they say they saw how severely damaged WTC7 was and anticipated its collapse? If NIST's findings are gov't controlled, then why did they mention 1 of their tests in which the steel withstood fire? If it's so obvious from a single (misinterpreted) phrase that Silverstein blew up his own bldg, why didn't his insurance company agree & withhold payment? Why was there no physical evidence of explosives found, e.g. detonators, blasting caps, cabling, etc.?
Why would you think air should have popped out more windows instead of being forced out along with the debris? Why do zero demo experts endorse the CD theory? Why have none of the hundreds, if not thousands of conspirators not leaked any info on the alleged "conspiracy"? How could explosives, detonators, and cabling have survived the plane impacts, fireballs & intense heat on the impact floors where the collapses began?
The only logical explanation is found on the video, it is right in your face, the top half does not emmit squibs, and floors do not pop out, only the bottom half burns as if it was a matchstick, each floor popping out
routinely after another. This proves A force caused the break at the plane strike.
I don't know what you mean bey floors "popping out" or not "popping out." Yes, there was a force at the the plane impact site. It was the downward force of the building mass above the weakened floors.
Absolutely, singbeatles....there is literally no way that a building can fall at the freefall rate. anyone who knows fifth grade physics knows at least that much. Anyone who cannot understand that does not merit a reply.
First, what's your source for claiming the towers fell at freefall speed? Second, how do you explain the debris falling faster than the towers? Does it have little motors on it to propel it downwards faster than the collapsing towers?
First: My source is Galileo. It is pretty much high school math, but conveniently overlooked. Second: Just a wild guess, but I'm going to say the debris didn't have 80 or so floors of resistance below it. Do I win a toaster?
Sorry, you don't win a toaster. You're eliminated from the game. Galileo does not say the WTC towers fell at freefall speed. So that's no a source. Are you afraid to say which conspiracy site you're using? The second answer is correct. Since the floors did indeed have resistance, they weren't falling at freefall speed. I'm glad you admit that. So that means we're back to the question of what's the evidence of explosive demolition?
My source is the free falling theory (Galileo). Plain and simple. The floors had to have "some" resistance in theory, but on 911, real science took a curve ball. My point is the collapse is right behind the debris in speed which is impossible. If you plug in the variables into the equation and compare it against the time at which the WTC collapsed, you come out with disbelief. And this happened three times. You can debate this, but math doesn't lie.
Debate what? You're not making sense. The towers indeed collapsed "behind" the falling debris. That's MY point. The debris is falling at freefall while the towers are falling at a slower speed. Thus, the towers are not falling at freefall speed. BTW, you haven't done any math here.
This is kinda funny. First,it is impossible for the debris to fall at free fall(air resistance). Second, try the free falling equation for yourself. It's relatively simple. No, I didn't do any math here. I couldn't find the chalk and eraser.
Yes, you're technically correct that the debris did not fall at freefall due to the air resistance. But it fell faster than the towers. And of course, in making your point about it being impossible for something to fall at freefall speed (except in a vacuum), you have just argued AGAINST all the CTers that claim the towers fell at freefall speed. Thank you. Now, what all this has to do with proving a controlled demo I don't know.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Keep your champagne on ice for now. The DISTANCE is the variable in the free fall equation that you're missing. The distance of the towers vs. the debris. The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall!! The debris started to fall where in relation to the top of the towers?
you're not hearing correctly PH if it breaks around the 78th flr debris would already be falling down before the ***30*** T H I R T Y floors above would even be at the impact zone level
"Now, what all this has to do with proving a controlled demo I don't know." Who have I been talking to? Here's what it means: It is impossible for the towers to come down at free fall, right? If plugging numbers into the equation shows that they did come at free fall, some external force had to influence their rate of descent....CD.
I think we are going in circles here. Plugging the numbers (WTC height) in the free fall equation SHOWS that the towers came down at approx. free fall speed. Anyone can do this math. We don't need experts for this one unless they lend you their calculator. The debris and the towers start off at diff distances (heights)=diff velocity.
Yes, we're going in circles. You haven't proven anything. You haven't proven that the towers fell at freefall, and haven't explained why the debris falls faster than the towers.
I knew that would be your answer. I'm not here to prove anything. You can do the math for yourself and compare it with the debunking websites, and invent some sort of rationalization. See ya then.
Every building is designed or not designed to fall behind the path of less resistance instead of the major one, phisics laws tell us it's a demolition, there's nothing to do.
JamaicaSound79 2 months ago
where can i see full video at 3:11 ???
oreskec 10 months ago
planes+bombs+wtc space.......
oreskec 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have the answer! The USA is the only place in the world where concrete/steel frame building turn to dust before even hitting the ground. CHECK EVERY 9/11 VIDEO YOU SEE. The buildings were turning to dust before they even hit the ground. lol ...and Building 7? lol Looks like the US Gov. is trying to sell you a bridge. lol
Born2Flesh 1 year ago
Someone explain to me if these are actually explosion's how these tiny itlle explosions helped the building fall at all. It not like there was something weakening the steel, Ohh wait these were fucking airliners carrying thousands of pounds of fuel. That fuel burns really hot, and really fast. You can have all the conspiracy theories you want about who planned 911, but those planes were more than enough to bring down those buildings.
paintsvillehs 1 year ago
@paintsvillehs
you don't really believe that small fires only on a few floors can bring down a 1350 ft steel framed building, do you? i hope not. wake up
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth I'm fully awake, and of course they could, you, on the other hand, have no idea how demolitions work. Random squibs could cause the building to fall randomly, and could also cause it to not fully fall down, leaving a fraction of the building to still be standing. You're the one who needs to wake up, stop feeding everyone your crackpot autistic theories.
CptCool2 1 year ago
@CptCool2
considering that fire has NEVER TOTALLY collapsed a steel high rise before or after 911, i can really see your logic here. here it is. youre either or planted shill or a moron. which is it? choose wisely?
seeknthetruth 1 year ago 2
@seeknthetruth That's because there has never been a huge fire plus the impact of a plane destroying the support beams crash into a building of that size. And fuck, your English is shit, wtf does "you're either or planted shill or a moron" mean? Where the fuck is your logic, you people think that the planes were just animations. Fuck, you people are so insipid, it makes me laugh. Where exactly did you go to college?
CptCool2 1 year ago
@CptCool2
read this carefully: you are either a government plant or a moron. is that japanese to ya? a plane didn't hit wtc7 and it collapsed in exactly the same manner as the towers. do you remember that? no? two impacts=three steel high rise collapses. really? how's your math since you have a problem with simple english? it doesn't get any more obvious. can you earn your government check somewhere else?
seeknthetruth 1 year ago 3
@seeknthetruth The North (or south, idk) Demolished the south side of WTC7. Have you ever worked in demolition, because I have, and that's not how you take down buildings. What you saw was the outer shell of the building come down, what authority do you have to make such claims anyways.
CptCool2 1 year ago
@CptCool2
ok, when the north tower collapsed, wtc7 was only damaged on one side and fell straight down and folded like a deck of cards. ever heard of the path of least resistence moron? no? meanwhile, wtc6 was in between wtc7 and the north tower, never collapsed and had to be demolished later. here's a serious question. do you have a brain? that's my authority.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
Google "9/11 Cancers"
WTCnucleardemolition 2 years ago
The Buildings Wouldnt Have Colapsed On A Good Time , But These Bombs Inside The Building Made It Collapse At That Time.
If There Wasnt Any Explosion , The Tower Could Stay Much Longer.
NawzKun 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Morons! only a freakin moron would believe this Bush hate blabber.
mdog2700 3 years ago
ur an idiot watch all 3 loose change films asshole and stfu
BOABRAB666 2 years ago
As they collapsed the air trapped inside spurted out - the comparrisions to demolished bldgs wasnt even close..no they didnt fall in on its self. no there were no series of visible bombs blowin up,,just air escaping. you are the dumbest fucks ive ever seen. im sorry but i thought ive seen some stupids in my time you take the freak-cake. congrats to ya. your own so called proof proves you is a stupid ass. you have eyes right-get them connected to your tiny brain..
mdog2700 3 years ago
lol , when i readed your comment
i just laughed my ass off , i couldnt stop laugh... im srry...
NawzKun 3 years ago
Yea thats cool, the one person who finnally has the balls to attack terrorism is of all things acused of bein one, and a natzi. I guess the only other thing you people get good ball-bustin entertainment from this. May God have Mercy on you all.
mdog2700 3 years ago
oh and ur a dumb fuck not us wanker
BOABRAB666 2 years ago
Believe me, the real truth is not in them.
mistermime122 3 years ago
For those of you who are convinced that fire from fuel cannot damage steel, type the following into Google:
"I-95 damage, detour snarl key Boston-NYC artery - The Boston Globe"
Read the Boston Globe article about a tanker truck that caught fire underneath a highway overpass in Connecticut back in 2004. Pay special attention to the second page.
kbc2006 3 years ago
there was no demolition. there where two planes. the reason the towers stood so long from that kind of beating it that the towers where desighned to avoid progressive colapse. when the out side walls failed it left the tower is free fall because the internal sructure was compramised by the planes. and those "squibs" are the air compression blowing out windows. conspacy nuts are so funny.
samboydh 3 years ago
Young and misguided.
bithot2nite 3 years ago
Why the fuck did you people RE-ELECT Bush???? He murdered 3,000 of you!
bithot2nite 3 years ago
total bullshit - only a complete moron would believe that - oh thats the new definition of liberal wacko I guess
wkwickham 3 years ago
Haha, you are not very popular on youtube are you Mr wkwickham. Have you seen the comments about you on your profile? You have nothing of interest I wish to hear. The rest of the world sees something that you can't even see on your doorstep. Thank god not all Americans are like you. they see it too.
bithot2nite 3 years ago
lovely - so 14-15 yr old conspiracy nuts hate me - so what - yet nobody can put just a single common sense motive on here that makes sense - just a bunch of loonie rants with no evidence
wkwickham 3 years ago
loonie rants, lol. Your eyes are so closed. No-one hates you, why should they? On YouTube, there is no point getting angry with a person if they do not see things clearly. That is why others try to show you the truth. Sometimes the truth is too horrible to contemplate, so a person makes excuses for the horror. There is lots of evidence, all you need to do is see it, althoough some people just can't, because the facts are too horrific.
bithot2nite 3 years ago
except there are no facts on your side oh wise one with eyes open - lets see the towers were knocked down to start a war for oil which we havent got yet or to avoid an abestos cleanup - lets see, you have no motive, no witnesses - not even one whistle blower from multiple demolition teams - no evidence - no chemical residue - you have nothing oh "wise" one
wkwickham 3 years ago
I have commom sense, and I work with facts. We don't need to be 'wise' to see what your government did to you. There IS intelligent life outside of the USA, y'know.
By the way, explain why you said "...which we havent got yet." Aparently, your government is not interested in the oil....are they?
bithot2nite 3 years ago 2
You just can't handle the truth because (quite rightly) it frightens you because you love your country. That's not a bad thing, I love England, and I hate what my government do to it too.
bithot2nite 3 years ago
people that say this war is fought for oil - where is the "free" oil flowing into and where? - for the war to be fought for oil - we would need to be stealing, looting it - yet its not happening - with free oil, politicians would be using that to lower oil prices to improve reelection chances - yet oil continues to climb - no free oil then the war wasnt fought for oil - so the point is false - my wise comment was sarcasm
wkwickham 3 years ago
When you have killed all of the natives, then you will have the oil. Its not available at the moment, because they are still alive to defend it.
America wants the oil.
bithot2nite 3 years ago
pretty extreme - we'd agree on one thing - the sooner america gets away from oil the better - all we are doing is making the people who hates us filthy rich
wkwickham 3 years ago
Well yes, your troops could go home and stay alive, because at the moment there are good guys dying over there so that other people can get rich.
Personally, I like most Americans, they are cool, but I hate what your government has done to you guys. The government makes $billions out of war, so it is strategic to sacrifice it's people to get the money.
The world sees it too. Sorry, dude.
bithot2nite 3 years ago
i realize that we are not we liked in the world community and i regret that - but 911 changed a lot of our ideas about this and i know i am less concerned about that and more about the consistent pursuit of islamic fascists - at any war in history, there will be some who make big money of supplying wars - that does not mean logically that those people did this - that is an illogical leap - the govt itself hasn't made jack, in fact it has gone into huge debt over this - so that is incorrect
wkwickham 3 years ago
I don't think the world hates you guys, it just hates your leaders because your leaders hurt you. We have nothing against ordinary American folk. I saw the extreme courage and bravery of your American Firefighters in 911 videos. The bravery was unsurpassed. I sat speechless at their extreme courage. So no, the world doesn't hate ordinary Americans.
bithot2nite 3 years ago
well we're kinda screwed now - this whole thing started with israel and our leaders before i was born decided to go along with this - i'd say most of us feel that was a mistake now but what are ya gonna do? kick millions of jews out in some genocide? there is no real way out of this problem - yet us normal guys were murdered and killed on 911 for what? i'm at the point where i'd like us to become isolationists again but 911 also showed that we cant ignore these fascists anymore either
wkwickham 3 years ago
I reckon it's not too late to change back to being isolationists, it just needs enough good guys over there to make it happen. Don't give up hope, dude :-)
bithot2nite 3 years ago
Errr, squibs have nothing to do with demolition 0.o
fubar123456 3 years ago
how could they put tonnes of explosives in side the building without any one noticing ?
demd79 3 years ago
how?
see Loose Change
you will understand not how , but who and why
h4rp4g4n 3 years ago
whats loose change ?
you dont think it was a few mad saudis that flew two planes into the buildings that made them fall down ? i do
demd79 3 years ago
how the conspiracy kooks explain this is that one of the bush family used his security company to plant bombs all over the place - and Larry S hired the saudi pilots - oh but there is no video of any demolition explosions or sounds of such and all they got is some video of dust being pushed out windows - OH Nor do they have any motive for any of this - just a driving hatred for Bush and the US govt - so therefore, with no motive, Bush did all of this along with a hurricane cause he's evil - hmmm
wkwickham 3 years ago
thehubisshit is right, we won't definently know for sure what the cause is until someone deep inside the system comes out and blows the cover, kinda of like deepthroat and nixon except thousands of people died with 9/11.
Killianblu13 3 years ago
this is a daft argument........neither of the sides will convince the other and it'll never ever be solved beyond reasonable doubt. like the moon landings etc etc
thehubisshit 4 years ago
I'm not saying it's a government conspiracy, I'm not a Loony, but it makes sense, people blow up their vehicles everyday and say someone stole it, so they can get money, there was motive, he was told that the building would have to be updated which would cost in the billions as far as I remember, wouldn't you blow up the buildings, and then place "Put Options" on the stock. it's genius, basically he knew he it was going to happen, and bet that it was, and made money that way. Smart Man
1981z28camaro 4 years ago
You people are Blind,, how does concrete jet out a building like that when nothing has hit it, you can clearly see, how much space is between the area that is collapsing and the explosions. use your brain people, it's a simple insurance claim, lol, on a bigger scale, and then Silverstein placed "Put Options" on United Airlines and American Airlines stock, and made a lot of money that way, it's brilliant I wish I thought of it, if I had no morals.
1981z28camaro 4 years ago 2
those 'put options' you are talking about were traced back to the CIA,and calling the truthers looneys just shows your frustration in believing your own government could be so diabolically corrupt,do some research on the bush family alone and its enough to raise your eyebrows, at the very least, the administration knew the planes were coming and purposely let it happen, not to mention WTC7 falling in in 6.5 seconds,which is impossible without the use of explosives, BUSH IS GUILTY OF HIGH TREASON
F4O4U4R4S 4 years ago 2
I'm going to explain something. The concrete floors were falling faster than the rest of the building. The "squibs" are merely evidence of air escaping that has been compressed by the falling floors. Tall buildings are designed to collapse as vertically as possible, demolition or no demolition.
Woolies2007 4 years ago 5
fucking government
trbjr21 4 years ago 10
@trbjr21 fucking idiot.
CptCool2 1 year ago
lol. you guys fight so much, i bet you guys dident no that there was a third building that collapsed that day in newyork for no reason
kavan11 4 years ago
oh and i have another thing to say all these conspiricy ass holes who say that jet liner feul doesnt burn steel, well ok thats true it doesnt, but when they sya it doesnt burn steel they mean to a molten steel, jet liner feul doesnt liquify steel but it sure as heel weekens it and with hundreds of thousands of building sitting on a few firey hot beems, its bound to fall
shityname5 4 years ago 2
OBODY WAS ON THOSE PLANES. DONT WORRY! Just a way for our government to bring us closer. It worked.
NorEaster07 4 years ago
no one was on the plane you fuckin moron????? where did united 175 and american 11s plane go then and the people stupid idiot
boeingman787 4 years ago
this video is very illogical...you are claiming 1 squib every 10 stories is enough to bring down the building...even if that was true, you guys are still complaining about how the buildings could withstand a jumbo jet traveling at 500 mph loaded with fuel...large plane with fuel cant bring down a building, but a small explosion every 100 ft can?
krispykreme82603 4 years ago
NIST stated that the jet fuel probably burned out within 10 minutes and the speaking to the plane impact...
From the WTC Construction Manager:
watch?v=64W8bzXfGCA
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
jet fuel isnt the only thing that burns...desks and paper caught fire as well inside the building, which would keep a fire roaring for much longer
krispykreme82603 4 years ago
There was only 56 minutes from time of impact to the collapse (South Tower). So, it took jet fuel only 10 minutes to ignite theses items? Meanwhile, ppl are walking to the impact over/through/around this heat that is hot enough to weaken steel? Also, there were many accounts of explosions being heard (and felt) in places like the basement levels. How? Then, throw in the extreme temps/molten metal found in the basement. Was this caused burning desks and paper 80 or more floors up?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
the people arent walking around right in the middle of the impact point, they are at the very bottom of the impact zone where the heat is probly not that bad...you bring up an example of 1 or 2 people standing at the very bottom of the impact zone where its not that hot, so may i bring up the 200 or so people who jumped from the towers due to extreme heats that the human body cannot stand?
krispykreme82603 4 years ago
The ppl that were at the impact hole had to walk through the path of the plane. The plane (parts, fireball) exitted through the other side of the building. The impact hole was initial point of the collapse. So, the steel had to be weakened at this location by this so-called heat. But, they were ppl standing at the impact hole. It doesn't add up.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
200 ppl? Where did you get that number from? What about the many ppl waving from the smoke filled windows? It is wrong to assume that heat was only factor causing the ppl to jump.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
well i doubt theres any other reason, but i assume the next load of bullshit to come around from u conspiracy theories is that "the people who jumped were actually pushed out by govt agents, who then ziplined to safety before collapse according to this video" (show some BS video) etc etc
krispykreme82603 4 years ago
(Toxic) smoke inhalation is one reason. Reaction to the explosions could be another. So, in the 56 minutes from time of impact to collapse, when was this heat created? Was it before or after ppl were walking to the impact hole, and waving from smoke filled windows?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
ok, lets say there were explosives...would you know how much would be needed to bring down a building that size from the top down? a bottom-up demolition uses the buildings own weight to bring it down...a top-down demolition doesnt have any weight above to bring down a building...you would need to blast away every section individually, therefore there shouldve been thousands of more "squibs"
krispykreme82603 4 years ago
think about it this way...get some blocks, and make a 5x5 base and 20 blocks high, using 500 blocks...with a normal demolition smack away the base and the rest of the blocks will tumble down...but to demolish from the top is different...you would have to knock away 1 cube at a time, 500 seperate "explosions", numerous simlutanious squibs blowing out on every side of the building...that wasnt seen at the WTC site was it...besides do you know how long it would take to set up that many explosives?
krispykreme82603 4 years ago
It wasnt the spoon trade centre was it?
AVRILSBEAN 4 years ago
WOW...only about 15 small explosions were needed per tower for them to totally collapse? a normal building 5 times smaller would need about 20 times more explosives...that sure adds up...since you know SOOOO MUCH about the explosives, would you mind telling me...
1. who planted them
2. who detonated them
3. why were so little explosives needed to bring down two of the tallest buildings in the world...wouldnt they need hundreds of times more explosives than that??
your story doesnt add up
krispykreme82603 4 years ago
1 and 2. Only the one who committed these acts can answer that. 3. The real question should be how can a plane impact and relatively small fires bring down two of the tallest buildings in the world? Next explain WTC7? Small fires limited to only one of side of the building and the building crumbles to dust?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
thanks for not answering my questions first of all, why should i answer yours? but i will anyways because i have the answers...first of all the fires werent small, or else there would have been very little smoke, people wouldnt have beem jumping from the buildings, and everyone from the stories above the impact would have been able to make it down...second, the fires at WTC7 were very intense, but obviously you havent seen pictures of the side of the building that was actually damaged
krispykreme82603 4 years ago
I did answer your question. Answer: How would I know? I wasn't there. Check out WTC7's "intense" fire.....err, I mean black smoke.
watch?v=9HU-F983izY&mode=related&search=
Please post video showing the intense fires you speak of.
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
take a look at where the smoke is pouring out of...its coming out EVERYWHERE, which shows almost every floor has some damage...it could be that there are dying fires which create a lot of smoke on other floors that werent badly damaged, but not much of the building is visible, so how do you know there arent larger fired hidden in the smoke?
krispykreme82603 4 years ago
Look at the history. Black smoke and an open air fire have never caused a steel high rise to collapse before or after 911. Do you find it odd that this occurred three times on 911? Even a little?
muzicmaker2001 4 years ago
were many supports broken away by some sort of collision with the building in any other righ rise fire?...just because a building has fire doesnt mean that it can be totally comparable to any other building that has had fire before...there are numerous differences that set them apart which make the outcome different as well
krispykreme82603 4 years ago
I knew Guiliani was sleazy when he was running for mayor. I couldn't have guessed he would stoop so low. I should have, though, because he attended the SEMENary.
CrazedLeper 4 years ago
Hey Loser, have you bothered to check out the tanker fire that melted a chunk of an overpass just east of the Bay Bridge eastern span? It was a regular tanker with fuel. No explosives, no squibs, or precuts to make this a plant by the government. It melted the bolts right off the span that was on fire. I could give a fuck about your spoon.
joecraine69shimself 4 years ago
who's this wanker talkin about spoons??? take the spoon and shove it up your hoop! And your version of events ignors ALL laws of physics. Try thinkin about what your eyes see and not the bull shit your being LED to believe.
liverpool, england.
nelzi80 5 years ago
Physics? You mean how the WTC collapsed at near free fall speeds or how the collapse is falling faster than the debris (gravity)? Is that the bloody physics you are talking about?
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
again u beleive this crap the building fell do to extensive heating for what an hour straight what happens when u burn a spoon on a stove it bends the building gave in and fell by it self what u think someones gonna whalts in there with dynomite strapped on and say yah u guys r out of luck were gonn blow this shit up and were gonna walk out like nothing happened
afireinside6767 5 years ago
Remember, there is no spoon....Neo
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
You can may call me a shill again, but hurt your own cause when you spew out wild accusation out like that. I contend that Americans would be willing to hear 9/11 conspiracy folks if the claims weren't so outlandish... I can only think of two or three people that do your side justice. You hurt your own agenda by revealing that this is really about the politics of an ingrained distrust of the government. This has nothing to do with 9/11 at all. It just serves as a podium for Alex Jones types.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
The left hand didn't know what the right was doing. A few private security managers knew to ignore the call and evacuated there employees without conferring with the WTC Security. But, as far as the average person knew these buildings were not going to come down and the firefighters would put out the blaze. The WTC 2 people felt they were safe. Why not go back to your desk. In retrospect, this was a terrible call made by the WTC people and hindsight is always 20/20.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
The bottom line for me is that I have yet to find an anti-conspiracy theorists(for lack of a better word)with PhD or without, that can logically and scientifically explain these two events 1. The WTCs collapsed at near free fall speeds. 2. The speed at which the WTC collapsed was faster than the debris falling (or gravity) which is shown at frame 00:27 of the video above.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Conspiracy folk keep grabbing on to this call for occupants to return to their desks. Every little thing has to be part of some great plot. For those us of that had family there that day, we can defiantly draw that no one knew what the hell happened in the first few minutes. A handful had seen the first plane, but most people didn't and had assumed some major bomb or missile had hit... No one imagined a plane could just hit a building when the air traffic goes the other direction.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
seriously, someone who has way to much time & money on their hands needs to build a 110 stry twr blow the top/mid section and let it burn let's see if it falls in less than 15 seconds as well i still don't get how the 75' fire burned for 3 hours & caused no serious structural damage to the structure & no trusses needed to be replaced
singthebeatles 5 years ago
Absolute bullshit. You assume that damage and debris was contained before the fall to the areas only in the impact zone. What a crock. Furthermore, what makes a furnace hot? Air and fuel. What do you think in a high rise the big gaping holes would do? Funnel air to create a super heated environment. Too many variables have to be 100% right to make your theory plausible.
blampa 5 years ago
BS? I'm not assuming anything. But, starting with frame 00:28 of the video above, it is pretty clear the collapse is moving faster than the debris (or gravity). That's impossible unless something is influencing the collapse. Molten metal? Massive steel thrown 400ft? Free fall speeds of the WTC? Eyewitness accounts of explosions? Pulverized concrete? Explanations? I'd like to hear them.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
If the heat was hot enough to weaken steel, why were many ppl waving from these smoke filled windows. Search Edna Cintron. Jet fuel at its max temp can't melt steel. So, what's left to burn; carpets, computers, desks, and other office items. So this is what created this intense heat that was hot enough to weaken the steel by 50%, but not harm the ppl in close proximity to it??? Jet fuel can't melt steel, so what is this molten metal discovered in the basements?
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
there were people evacuating passing those fires stanley and brian, edna-not burned there were people trapped above making 911 calls even up until the very second it collapsed, they weren't burning alive yes it was hot & they said that but obviously not BLAZING STEEL MELTING/STEEL WEAKENING hot what do you think has more tolerance to heat human flesh or steel remember the fire of 75' in the north tower, i didn't think so
singthebeatles 5 years ago
I looked into this Pro.Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl since he made his proposed modifications to the Eastern span of the Bay Bridge. At no point has ever claimed that there was a demolition. He even had a an chance to voice any concerns at the The House Commitee he spokee in front years ago.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
The "evidence" here is poor and way of in trying to prove this "squib" theory. Most of the explosives going off in the real demolitions are used to start the collapse of the mass above to came straight down. This is done to use the mass to do the work with little stain on the workers to use more explosive and cutting. The WTC towers had already started their way down when we see these explosions.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
PH and ishmaiden. One question: Do you see that the demolition wave or collapse is falling faster than the debris (gravity) starting with frame 00:28 of this video? If you answered yes, that's impossible without external forces (CD) acting upon it.If you answered no, please look again and immediately drive yourself to the nearest eye doctor.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
See, this is the exact same smugness I'm talking about. The fact of the matter is that no one had ever seene two buldings over 1362 and 1368 ft. tall come down in such a fashion. 9/11 "truthers" always use this tone of talk when confronting those who don't buy into it for one minute. Are there questions? Yes. Does everyone buy the 9/11 report from 2004? Of course not. That's one of the tricks. "truthers" prey on this and somehow give people the "answer" that the government did it.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
The biggest thing I would point is the impact on the south tower and it's corner members facing the East River. Let's say there was a pod on the plane and it hit at an akward angle. The blast blows out numerous support beams, as we see in the videos, setting off the initial explosion. You mean to tell me that planted explosives can withstand the force being administered and also survive the heat to still function without any of them going off uncontrolled.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
Throw into the mix molten metal found in the basements of the North, South and WTC7. Many eyewitness accounts of pre-collapse explosions, some actually injuring ppl. 600,000 pound steel thrown 400ft and concrete and much of the building's contents pulverized to fine dust. Then I ask myself, can a plane impact,fire and a building collapse accomplish of these things alone? Can CD explosives generate this kind of heat and massive energy to expel steel and pulverize building materials?
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Not only that, You'd still have to ensure the plane hits dead on where these things are planted. The south tower collapses in the direction of the Northeastern corner that was severly compromised after taking the blow. You have to be asking more than a miracle to make sure these explosives would still go off at this exact same point. Truthers could try to say that these were pre weakened, but something like that would be impossible to avoid seeing.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
I point to science and logic when dealing with the "strange" aspects of the 911. Free fall speeds of the WTC, demolition wave (collapse) falling faster than the debris or gravity. These two points are unexplainable (and scientifically impossible) if the official story is the only "theory" on the plate.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
You may call me what you wish. My feelings could take such a hit. My only problem would be the translation for a term we use in Spanish. I mean, I could try it english, but something get's lot and it would require me knowing you're mother . . . it's just a bigger mess.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
How about the fact the WTC buildings all fell at free-fall speeds? This was impossble before and after 911. Did 911 bend science?
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Again with this? If you looked at the whole collapse, not just the outer wall, you'd see large portions of the cores still standing for a good amount of time. these portins are large enough to be seen in highrise video from mid-town Manhattan.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
Ok, the outer wall collapsed at free falling speeds. But, it doesn't matter if the TV antenna fell at free falling speeds, it is still scientifically impossible. How do you even get past that logically?
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Ok, school me then. You tell me how one could plant explosives in a high rise that would have to withstand a precise hits twice. Maybe you can also tell me how these explosives could stand the heat and not go off in a uncontrolled fashion. To make this thing go you would still need an extensive amount of "gutting" going on. Precuts, removal of materials, cables to running to the "squibs" near pre-weakend members. Unless you wanna claim a remote did it?
ishmaiden 5 years ago
Just MY theory here: The building would have to be completely wired so the impact point did not matter at all. This would also explain how portions of the building ABOVE the impact point "instantly" turn into dust as the building collapsed. There was no force acting upon those undamaged floors, so it's a mystery how this happened unless explosives were used.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
There was no force acting upon those undamaged floors? Really? Oh that's right, you're the one that thinks the kinetic energy just somehow vaporized. There was tremendous downward force of the top of the building on each lower floor. "Wiring" the whole building would have been impossible to conceal.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
Also, I can't see gravity, compressed air or KE having enough force to project a 600,000 pound chunk of WTC steel 400ft. I think we both agree on that....I hope. There wasn't the heat that you're assuming, otherwise we wouldn't see many ppl (like Edna Cintron) waving from the windows where the fires were supposedly hot enough to weaken steel.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
You can't "see" it because you don't want to understand it. I've referred you to this paper on the kinetic energy which you've chosen to ignore but have been unable to cite any errors in. Who says there wasn't high temp levels in the towers? Why do you think the fires had to be uniform? Maybe they'd already spread when Cintron arrived.
w w w 911myths*com/WTCREPORT.pdf
PoetryHound 5 years ago
There were many accounts of explosions in the basement and sub-basement levels before the actual collapse to pre-weaken the structure. View my video, "Evidence of Explosives used at WTC? " for direct evidence of these explosions. Also, this would explain the molten metal found in the basements of all three buildings. This demolition was unique in that it was an explosion instead of an implosion so removal of materials has no impact on the actual collapse.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
How do explosions in the basement bring down a building from the top down? Especially explosions that happen well in advance of the collapse and cause no apparent structural weakening? Molten metal was also reported in WTC 6 & no on claims explosives were used there. There is no evidence of any explosive demolition. You're making it all up by ignoring the engineers, demo experts, & others who know better than you.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
You know what else is funny about this video? How they say the "tornado effect" and the strong shockwave that came off the collapse. Its funny how they try to pin it on the "Massive explosions" that could have only done that.
GenCrazyIvan 5 years ago
I have seen real footage of explosives being used and the shockwaves are momentary, and they dont continue to travel out so far away. Now, a snow avalanche can do the same thing. A strong wind, tornado effect that can sweep you off your feet has also happened with avalanches, which is exactly what was happening durng the collapse. All of that debris crashing down falling hundreds of feet will create the same effect. Simple physics and common sense can disprove many of these conspiracies!
GenCrazyIvan 5 years ago
PH, Keep your reports. PH and GenCrazyIvan , do me a favor.View my "Evidence of Explosives used at WTC?" video posted and tell me how this is possible. I really like to hear your logic. This is not someone's opinion, or some biased report. This is actual video evidence directly from CNN. Meet you there?
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Thank you! You said more about this then I ever could. I may not be a physics guy, but I did pick a few things about explosives and bringing things down from my father and his service experience. There would be a sequence of explosiions from the lower floors and would go first. Not the other way around. Plus, that kind of work doesn't get done in a building that size without months of work setting this up.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
ishmaiden, you're right that standard approach to demolition is to take out the base, not the top first. These conspiracy nuts think each floor was blown out sequentially downwards. Since we see no structural weakening before the collapse wave arrives, that means the columns of each floor had to be blown up at the very nanosecond that the collapse wave arrived at that floor. Completely & utterly implausible.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
ur right that's the STANDARD but does the world always work on standard standard is to get good grades standard is to be w/ the opposite sex standard planes arent disc shape or go mach 7 but you have the x43 the silver bug project the avro aircraft if they wanted to they could blow out fl 3 then 24 the base then 6 30 15 its not a law of physic that u can only blow a twr from the bottom up are u saying its not possible to blow a twr like that thats what youre claiming right its not possible
singthebeatles 5 years ago
Plus those "squibs" would not be shooting out such a big constant stream of dust and debris. Only highly compressed air from the force of a massive collapse can do something like that! Plus the extra compressed air would also force the chunks of the building farther away during the pancake effect.
GenCrazyIvan 5 years ago
we've all seen the ending pics, dust and rubble how is it that all that broken up mass still had the energy force to reduce the 60 undamaged flrs to basically nothing? we all see the S twr leaning & crumbling, with BIG chunks falling to the street so that weights off the structure, what's demolishing the building?
singthebeatles 5 years ago
Another thing is if you're gonna try to call some one stupid, you should atleast talk to firefighters who've worked with this kind of work. My lady's father is a battalion captain who's made visits to OK City and Manhattan. If I don't know the answer, I look to the people that do. These people would be up in a frenzy if they even suspected a controlled demolition. They didn't come from the bottom up and they these "blasts" are supposed to be in a chain before intial collapse. Not after.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
Next, you're gonna come up with the WTC people who say they could take multiple hits via airplanes. I don't care how well designed a skyscrapper is, you take that kind of damage and expect it survive. Then you're gonna bring Up the Madrid Windsor Manor and other notable fires and plane crashes. The only problem is they still had the fireproofing, were not nearly the same scale of plane, and the design were totally different.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
On the decoration, of course these things were serving a function. But, even with bands and bolts connecting the outside, you still need to connect them to the core. These things sway with tropical storm winds at 1368Ft and have to take the strain like any other highrise. They weren't the end all, however you can't tell me that any wall mesh will stand freely and not give.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
You people do this constantly. Ten years ago I would have been with you on this. The only problem is you're stretching and you revealed what you are. Another "Bush is Dumb and evil" poster that has litered the web. I hate Bush, But this man could scrw up a cup of coffee.I don't figure Bush would skillfully pull of 9/11 to not also set up WMD's in Iraq. Unless I'm being gullible.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
Ok, let the smugness begin. The notion of the floors did notion for the overall structure is not true. Yes, they did't share the load like the core and the walls, but they did function in keeping those walls from pulling away from the building. some floors could go down, but that wall isn't going to stay up with out it. Not with a giant hole from one side to the other.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
The squib theory is a joke! It doesn't follow a controlled demolition pattern. Those collapses start from the bottom going upward. This wasn't the case. We've seen the same kind of thing with the Waco nuts that swear that they saw flame throwers and they have the video proof. Anybody would know that such a massive load coming down would blast out all kinds of air towards the bottom.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
You're not going say this is due to compressed air? Please. Did you know that during the collapse, a 600,000 pound chuck of steel was thrown 400 ft at a neighboring building? Was that compressed air also?
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Yes I do know that there were enormous amounts of debris that struck other buildings. My family lives there and my cousin was just a few blocks south of the complex. My father was also a 22 year vet and had hands experince with explosives and demolitions. He'd be the first one to tell you that an "inside job' is a logistical nightmare. The amount of precutting, stratigic placement of the explosives, ensuring that they also survived impact and fires, then timing them to go off?
ishmaiden 5 years ago
And, before I hear that "secret evacuations" about pre-9/11, I'd remind people that was warnings the previous week about threats to Americans overseas and at high risk areas. It was on the major networks the weekend before. We had the COlE the previous year and th'93 bombing. I would eb shocked if they didn't do drills.
ishmaiden 5 years ago
why were they evacuating most of the other WTC's 7 is a big one to bring up but telling WTC 2 to go back your building is secure? they had "secret" evacs, they knew they were targets but when it's life and death they all the sudden forget and it's stay put even though the building next to you is on fire with a plane in it
singthebeatles 5 years ago
this is really interesting, and i am just learning about this POV today. i have a question. couldn't the "squibs" have been debris being forced through air/elevator/etc shafts via the massive compression from above? some vids give both sides, but not on the squibs. maybe that's cuz there isn't another side...
highcoldstar 5 years ago
let's hear it muzicmaker,Bearoverthere WNanette, cc40TX, JoeCraine01
big round of applause to hoetrypound and marksman for their parrotism uh..errrr i meant patriotism
sieg hiel bush let's give him a round of applause for the fourth reich brrravi!
kill all the jews damn i mean iraqi's they are the enemy
singthebeatles 5 years ago
don't forget stanley primath??? and brian clark stanley was at the impact zone (south tower) and brian was above they were in those raging hot fire zones hot enough to weaken steel but not human flesh
singthebeatles 5 years ago
I totally agree. Logically, it doesn't make sense to see Edna Cintron waving at the plane impact hole if there were raging fire hot enough to weaken steel as the official story states.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
If the planes had impacted more toward the very top, then full collapses would have been less likely. Yes, the current political leaders in the U.S. cannot be trusted, but I won't blame them for 911 until I see facts. So far, I've only seen questions and speculation.
source?
and Fact: larry silverstein leased the building 6 weeks before collapse
and whole terrorist scene, "lets get osama!" thats more than speculation
cc40TX 5 years ago
cc40TX, I think you're right that if the planes had hit on say, the 108th floor, its more likely that the 107th floor would have been able to withstand the force of a 3-floor mass.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
muzic, since we're back to talking about some things with each other, I'd like to bring up some things that ended abruptly. You once said molten steel was found at ground zero 8 weeks after 911. Do you still believe that and belive that explosives kept the steel in a molten form? If you do, can you back it up? It was left hanging before.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
I did look it up and you got it wrong. Plus, you've once again ignored the kinetic energy. And you keep ignoring the scientific papers I've provided. Why don't you provide some scientific papers that support your contentions?
PoetryHound 5 years ago
Conveniently moving to another subject, aren't we? Show me where the data is wrong. I hope it's not that same page. This is a merry-go-round. I already addressed KE. Only when there is ZERO resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. As you know, there was a boat-load of resistance with the collapse of the WTCs and temps above 1100F (WTC basement)is alot of energy transferred.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Now, unlike me, you never give references to sites where you're getting your "information." Here's a paper that calculates the collapse times at 12.6 seconds for WTC 1 and 11.5 seconds for WTC 2 (slower than freefall). It applies the correct seismic data. w w w 911myths*com/WTCREPORT.pdf Which site did you get your collapse times from?
PoetryHound 5 years ago
To PH
There is a series here on YouTube called something like "The 9/11 newsreport you never saw". It's Canadian, and therefore not slanted (Like the US media). Six parts. Lots of facts. Check it out.
Bearoverthere 5 years ago
(3 buildings) were all destroyed in one day? Well if you support the fire collapse claim, you are to explain why the Towers "collapse" like a matchstick burning, and why building 7 looks like a demolition. Explain to me why building 7 does not do the matchstick effect. After all they did Both descend down due to Fire.
cc40TX 5 years ago
cc40TX, read the preliminary NIST report on WTC 7.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
Poetry hound, if your beleif and every other americans belief is that all buildings, WTC buildings that collapsed fell due to fire, due to terroristic attacks,
Reassured that the buildings were covered for this kind of damage of sorts..
cc40TX 5 years ago
Is the FDNY lying when they say they saw how severely damaged WTC7 was and anticipated its collapse? If NIST's findings are gov't controlled, then why did they mention 1 of their tests in which the steel withstood fire? If it's so obvious from a single (misinterpreted) phrase that Silverstein blew up his own bldg, why didn't his insurance company agree & withhold payment? Why was there no physical evidence of explosives found, e.g. detonators, blasting caps, cabling, etc.?
PoetryHound 5 years ago
Why would you think air should have popped out more windows instead of being forced out along with the debris? Why do zero demo experts endorse the CD theory? Why have none of the hundreds, if not thousands of conspirators not leaked any info on the alleged "conspiracy"? How could explosives, detonators, and cabling have survived the plane impacts, fireballs & intense heat on the impact floors where the collapses began?
PoetryHound 5 years ago
The only logical explanation is found on the video, it is right in your face, the top half does not emmit squibs, and floors do not pop out, only the bottom half burns as if it was a matchstick, each floor popping out
routinely after another. This proves A force caused the break at the plane strike.
cc40TX 5 years ago
I don't know what you mean bey floors "popping out" or not "popping out." Yes, there was a force at the the plane impact site. It was the downward force of the building mass above the weakened floors.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
Sir Isaac Newton was a conspiracy theorist!!! ;)
biggahthebettah 5 years ago
Absolutely, singbeatles....there is literally no way that a building can fall at the freefall rate. anyone who knows fifth grade physics knows at least that much. Anyone who cannot understand that does not merit a reply.
biggahthebettah 5 years ago
You're right. There's no way a building can fall a freefall rate. And they didn't.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
First, what's your source for claiming the towers fell at freefall speed? Second, how do you explain the debris falling faster than the towers? Does it have little motors on it to propel it downwards faster than the collapsing towers?
PoetryHound 5 years ago
First: My source is Galileo. It is pretty much high school math, but conveniently overlooked. Second: Just a wild guess, but I'm going to say the debris didn't have 80 or so floors of resistance below it. Do I win a toaster?
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Sorry, you don't win a toaster. You're eliminated from the game. Galileo does not say the WTC towers fell at freefall speed. So that's no a source. Are you afraid to say which conspiracy site you're using? The second answer is correct. Since the floors did indeed have resistance, they weren't falling at freefall speed. I'm glad you admit that. So that means we're back to the question of what's the evidence of explosive demolition?
PoetryHound 5 years ago
My source is the free falling theory (Galileo). Plain and simple. The floors had to have "some" resistance in theory, but on 911, real science took a curve ball. My point is the collapse is right behind the debris in speed which is impossible. If you plug in the variables into the equation and compare it against the time at which the WTC collapsed, you come out with disbelief. And this happened three times. You can debate this, but math doesn't lie.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Debate what? You're not making sense. The towers indeed collapsed "behind" the falling debris. That's MY point. The debris is falling at freefall while the towers are falling at a slower speed. Thus, the towers are not falling at freefall speed. BTW, you haven't done any math here.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
This is kinda funny. First,it is impossible for the debris to fall at free fall(air resistance). Second, try the free falling equation for yourself. It's relatively simple. No, I didn't do any math here. I couldn't find the chalk and eraser.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Yes, you're technically correct that the debris did not fall at freefall due to the air resistance. But it fell faster than the towers. And of course, in making your point about it being impossible for something to fall at freefall speed (except in a vacuum), you have just argued AGAINST all the CTers that claim the towers fell at freefall speed. Thank you. Now, what all this has to do with proving a controlled demo I don't know.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Keep your champagne on ice for now. The DISTANCE is the variable in the free fall equation that you're missing. The distance of the towers vs. the debris. The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall!! The debris started to fall where in relation to the top of the towers?
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Once again, if you're claiming the towers came down at freefall speed, how do you explain the debris coming down faster?
PoetryHound 5 years ago
you're not hearing correctly PH if it breaks around the 78th flr debris would already be falling down before the ***30*** T H I R T Y floors above would even be at the impact zone level
singthebeatles 5 years ago
"Now, what all this has to do with proving a controlled demo I don't know." Who have I been talking to? Here's what it means: It is impossible for the towers to come down at free fall, right? If plugging numbers into the equation shows that they did come at free fall, some external force had to influence their rate of descent....CD.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Who says they came down at freefall?
PoetryHound 5 years ago
I think we are going in circles here. Plugging the numbers (WTC height) in the free fall equation SHOWS that the towers came down at approx. free fall speed. Anyone can do this math. We don't need experts for this one unless they lend you their calculator. The debris and the towers start off at diff distances (heights)=diff velocity.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago
Yes, we're going in circles. You haven't proven anything. You haven't proven that the towers fell at freefall, and haven't explained why the debris falls faster than the towers.
PoetryHound 5 years ago
I knew that would be your answer. I'm not here to prove anything. You can do the math for yourself and compare it with the debunking websites, and invent some sort of rationalization. See ya then.
muzicmaker2001 5 years ago