If those are the "FLOORS" its falling with no resistance how come it falling way faster then the debris??? And it caught up to other falling debris on the way down how is that possible?
@Dantedijon Show me proof there are explosives lol... I also think its important to note that its quite possible we are just seeing the outer covering of the columns being ripped away by the sheer force of dispelled air that also breaks the glass. One thing with all of these videos is the smoke obscures EVERYTHING! There are pieces of the building that remain intact for seconds behind the giant smoke screen in some of the videos I've watched
wow i just made a comment about the last video i watched saying its the best vid of a controlled demolition of north or south tower but let me recant that because shit man this is it right here
@Dantedijon good question,have you seen pictures of the twisted beams? Where did all the concrete go? watch?v=M4XDN9sY3GI&list=FLJoLKgA6rQ_a_qjj56e1y2A&index=2&feature=plpp_video
clearly shows explosive action. the idea that columns buckled (simultaneously and in perfect harmony across the entire perimeter all the way down), is ABSURD. Anyone viewing this and still accepting the "official" explanation of 9/11 is clearly and thoroughly brainwashed to the nth degree.
'clearly shows explosive action'??? so not the air being pushed down the stairwells and elevator shafts and blowing out the windows? No, i mean that's far too logical? Stop sticking up for Muslims and loving Al Qaeda and Taliban.
@Stu3100 ..."so not the air being pushed down the stairwells and elevator shafts and blowing out the windows? No, i mean that's far too logical? Stop sticking up for Muslims and loving Al Qaeda and Taliban."
HAHAHA....I only love my family, truth and justice. Stu, please, take that head out of your arse, man!
And how about the central columns (arguably, the strongest part of the structure)? How did those come undone? Please, use the remaining few brain-cells you've got left and THINK!
@Stu3100 mhmm, man you better look in to one of the buildings that fell down perfectly (like the towers, I mean really? Fucking neat little pile with out explosives? Give me a break) and had a crimp, EXACTLY how demo experts do it? Get educated you fool, your country is just greedy for Oil. 9/11 was a hoax. Plus... 66 or so video cameras aimed at the pentagon, and not one saw the plane hit it? Hmmm.. Man I better just blindly follow my government, they have a good history with truth.. idiot
@andybb10 You don't understand what you are looking at for one thing.
There isn't an explosive to be had in any of the buildings. The collapses would look ENTIRELY different if there were.
A concrete floor secured on each end by a bracket and a 5/8th's inch bolt is going to offer no support to collapsing 14 stories. Wouldn't stand a chance. The columns hold the weight. The floors are not engineered for a load like this. Their job is to support the columns.
@roquefortfiles ...I don't know whether to LOL or cry with this rubbish. Are people really THAT stupid, I ask myself.
OK rocky, exactly HOW would it look like if it were explosives? As for ur childish 'explanation', the floors WERE DESIGNED to hold ALL the load above. Also, ANY size bolt would offer at least SOME resistance - which would show down any downward movement. FREE-FALL zero resistance - IMPOSSIBLE without explosives!
@andybb10 The building does not fall at free fall. That's a fallacy. Its falling fast absolutely. But not at free fall.
No you're wrong about the floors. They do not carry vertical loads. The columns do that. The floors have a load limit and its about 1500 tons. Now we'll drop 31 stories on it.. Some 180,000 tons IN MOTION (huge difference of static load to dynamic load).
There is no floor system anywhere capable of holding this. It would fail instantly.
@roquefortfiles ...LOL I'd say, if I were YOUR physics teacher, the only thing that would FAIL INSTANTLY would be YOU!!
Even by your flawed logic, if the floors 'separated' from the columns (like a piston inside a cylinder), at the end of the collapse we'd have the perimeter AND core columns essentially standing there. It was the columns that carried the load and they had to be removed in a highly synchronized sequence, all the way around - hence the symmetry.
@andybb10 BTW. That's written by a structural engineer. So...
If you bother to examine the collapse of WTC 2 you will see how the upper 31 stories has rotated over and now has its Eastern edge resting inside the exterior wall. This wall is peeled off almost intact. Its rotation point is about floor 48. The upper 31 stories is sheering off all of the floor connections along that outer wall.
@roquefortfiles No there are no explosives here, no question it's just airpressure at work here, I can see it clearly now, very clear.
Still wondering though about that stream of molten metal, the sudden failure of all steel columns, the time in which this was supposedly reached while no inferno was visible at all, the fact that so much material was turned into a fine powder, the fact that NIST used very little beams to try & support their ludicrous theory of fire-induced collapse, that's all
@Sandberg1972 Explosives do not turn floors an acre across in to powder. In fact explosives are a very lousy material to do this.
But massive grinding weight sure as hell does turn concrete into powder. The level of fragmentation seen could be achieved at 1.5 gigajoules of energy.
The collapse produced nearly 3.5 Gigajoules of energy on the floors.
@roquefortfiles Aahhhhh, I see, it's the and I quote "massive grinding weight" that would and I quote "sure as hell turn concrete into powder". Sure as hell ey? Rrrrrrrright.
Just throw around some impressive energynumbers & all of a sudden it's possible, right? In fact it's "far more than enough", even though this phenomenon has never ever been seen before anywhere on Earth.
Just imagine, as soon as the 1st lower floor gets hit: pufff, an acre of concrete gets turned into dust, just like that
@roquefortfiles "The failure point is where the plane hit it. Everything above that is descending on the lower floors."
Yes except those 30 floors of WTC2 did not descend straight down but instead were leaning to the east and, without the use of explosives, should've toppled off, as the centre of gravity of the 30-storyblock would shift off centre more and more, until it would go outside of the footprint of the building.
@Sandberg1972 without the use of explosives, should've toppled off, as the centre of gravity of the 30-storyblock would shift off centre more and more, until it would go outside of the footprint of the building.
No.. No no. We are not talking about a set of building blocks here. The gravity loads all are directed straight down. The building is basically hollow inside. 90% of it is just air.
More than enough weight to bring down the structure.
@Sandberg1972ust imagine, as soon as the 1st lower floor gets hit: pufff, an acre of concrete gets turned into dust, just like that
Your talking 4 inches of concrete against a descending mass of 31 floors? 650 tonnes per floor of concrete??
Do the math!! its not even a contest. And as i said a report i read calculated the crush resistance of the concrete to be about 1.5 Gigajoules. That would render it POWDER.
@roquefortfiles The "descending mass" you describe consists of mostly air (as some like to make it look like the lower part was pretty weak & ready to be annihilated). Ever seen nearly all the concrete turn to dust in a regular CD? I haven't.
In order to crush something u need it to resist very heavily. But there was hardly any resistance to the collapses, something NIST tried to pretend was normal to assume, even though there wasn't any basis to do so.
@Sandberg1972 But there was hardly any resistance to the collapses, something NIST tried to pretend was normal to assume, even though there wasn't any basis to do so.
No you're completely wrong.
The collapse was nothing BUT resistance.
In a CD the charges remove the resistance as the structure falls. Everything is moving together. The debris lands at its footprint.
This is not happening at the WTC. The entire collapse is complete resistance being spewed 500 feet sideways
And we don't have it both ways. You simply don't understand what you're talking about.
Go and have a look at LANDMARK implosion. Firstly.. (Umm. listen to it!! that should be enough for you LOL!!)
Secondly. Notice how this building is falling? Cohesively as a unit. It is not being laid out for a block in every direction. Why? Because the resistance is being removed by the charges.
None of this seems to concern you, fine by me. But what's all the fuzz about then? Why protest so much? Why not let me be the fool, and you just worry about your own life, u see?
This video is clear enough for anyone to get to grips with reality.
This is explosive action we're watching in this vid. But u're free to believe it's airpressure
Uh.. NO!!.. Go and look at the time lines of each jet. There WAS no time to do anything about this. That's thing that gets me angry. People don't understand what they are talking about on this.
Go do a Google search on U 175 timeline. Taken DIRECTLY from ATC reports. There was all but 15 mins from the time it was DECLARED a hijack to the time it hit the buildings. No time to do ZIP.
@Sandberg1972This is explosive action we're watching in this vid. But u're free to believe it's airpressure
Explosive action? With what? Silent explosives?.. There is a camera crew 800 feet from this building as it collapses. They record nothing. Not one bang not one charge.
Ever experienced shape charges? I have.
Let me assure you there is no way on this earth your going to have a camera crew 800 feet away record nothing.
I have done exactly this. Its not remotely possible.
@roquefortfiles Some other crucial issues u've failed to answer thusfar:
The streams of molten metal, the sudden failure of all steel columns, the time in which this was supposedly reached while no inferno was visible at all, the fact that so much material was turned into a fine powder, the fact that NIST used very little beams to try & support their ludicrous theory of fire-induced collapse.
U covered only the concrete turning to dust bit, and did a very poor job I might add.
@andybb10 have you prove of your claim about Explosives? If so can you show the seismic activity,the lack of damage to the bathtub.How can an Aluminium plane cause this to happen?If you state thermite,what of the unburnt paper? watch?v=M4XDN9sY3GI&list=FLJoLKgA6rQ_a_qjj56e1y2A&index=2&feature=plpp_video
I hasn't behave like a steel building collapse, maybe because of the bolted perimeter column sections, these section were 3 strory's high each, but i don't think so!
Nobody people are INTELLIGENT, read with me and THINK!!: HOW we can see from BELOW the ejectec debris fron the face of the tower, its more faster then the free fall speed of upper debris? jajajaja,jejejeje: OBIOUSLY THIS IS IMPOSIBLE for the physics laws: What we can see are the EXPLOSIONS of the controled demolition FASTER than the upper debris at FREE FALL SPEED.
ANY STUPID DEBUNKER HERE? 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. FUCK TO THE STUPIDS!!!
@Inigo37 Your statement is as smart as your gammar........ THINK MAN, THINK!!!!!! And obviously, he saw one of the towers collapse. IT DID NOT EXPLODE.
@TheMJDCProductions English is NOT MY MOTHER LANGUAJE MAN!, WTC DID NOT ESPLODE?? jejeje: see yourself an wakeup: Youtube: New view of the WTC2 collapse. Take the video with this name, is a short video (9seconds more or les). In the 3-4 second an innoportune comentarist begin to speak, forget his voice, an listen the sound o the collapse, in the 4-5second a BIG SOUND OF EXPLOSION is CLEARLY listen, and one debrish in front of the wall is push to down at MUCH MORE SPEED of the UPPER DEBRIS.
The funny thing is you seem to think no one would have noticed the demo crews that just happened to be installing exposives under peoples desks for a few weeks. It' s just a compression wave.
Explosives + nano thermite no need nuclear too dangerous for new York citizens during the years after the demolitions.That was not Tchernobyl but i dont understand how rescuers had huge problems of illness after they work on the site. I would say it because of ammonium used in the explosives.
@frankito78 You are wrong, only nuclear underground explosion can pulverize concrete. This is NOT A JOKE:
Youtube: Dimitry Khalezov. And his banned book on Amazon: The Third Thurth. The explosives was a secondary force or help force to collapse. The most incredible is the thruth. Was a nuclear demoliton, see the videos please. I am from Basque country Land (North of Spain) four years wake up from now.
no one can tell me that is "structural faillure" the towers are a lot stronger at the ground, because the ground part holds the upper part. no way it can come down this way...think about it !
@LHOdidntdoit yh this ejections were caused by the huge mass of building falling BUT you should see the video I just saw, I dont even believe in all this conspiracy theories but I swear to God you can see an explosion
@deathmetalhippy WROONNG. You forgot to mention: WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6. If so many buildings fell, IT MUST HAVE BEEN AN INSIDE JOB. No. It was just a chain reaction, two huge buildings fell, buildings around it fell, buildings around those were damaged, whole city covered in dust.
'TUESDAY MORNING IN SEPTEMBER'. Available on DVD. Runtime 130 minutes. Pure, unfiltered, authentic, and being released in such a way to keep its integrity. Project is not affiliated and or connected to, working for any organization, putting forth propaganda and or slant perspectives of the events on 9/11. It is the most complete video chronicle in real time of the wtc attacks.
It's really sad how people sad how people handle their ignorance by coming up with wild nonsense. In the old days, people couldn't explain lightning said God did it. Nowadays, people who are too ignorant to understand why the towers fell say the government did it. The collapse of the towers happened according to the laws of physics. If you think otherwise then you're simply missing part of the equation. Government conspiracies do not belong in that equation.
It's very sad how blind sheep accept the crminial cover-up of what happened on 9/11 and the removal of evidence on the scene. Since then, the perpertraitors who control the US congress have come up with peposterous lies about "Osama & the 19 Hijackers" which first of all has never been proven and is slowly getting more and more threatened by the architects, engineers and scientists who once believed the official fairy tale but then they actually took time to check NIST reports.
"Nowadays, people who are too ignorant to understand why the towers fell..."
Excactly: Most people still think "2 767's and some fires caused the powderizing "collapses" of 3 steel framed hi-risers and all the unexplained phenomenons that NIST ignores."
Actually, the NIST report is excactly the same as saying that God made lightning.
I'd like to get my hands on one of those magical silent invisible bombs that many people say somehow caused the pancake collapse of the wtc towers and check one out for myself!
@DrVresig It's quite obviously a pancake collapse when you look at the video. The dust clouds being ejected out the sides are distinctive enough to distinguish where each floor is being crushed.
The pattern of those bursts matches the structural assembly of truss sections, and the area of the worst damage after the top part leaned in that direction and crumbled everything beneath it.
Yes that's some powerful air, breaking all the steel connections and hurling the outer sections outward. Look again dude, the structure is being methodically demolished, it don't get anymore graphic than this.
I'm sure DrVresig did not cut the sound out, that's what NIST very likely had done, since they are the source of these FOIA requests.
Btw there's a tremendous roar during the "collapse" of both towers that you can hear fairly easily, is that steel banging steel?
@Sandberg1972 Yeah, there's absolutely no possible way the millions of joules of energy from 500,000 tonne collapsing floors hurdling down a drop of 1000 feet would EVER damage those steel columns. Hell no. Steel is the strongest metal in existence, isn't it?
Unlike the explosives they typically use in Cont. Demos that could be easily heard from miles away, they used magical silent explosives in the twin towers, and they hid them so well that no survivor ever reported them. Amazing!
@MazJax Didn't you comment this in the video i linked: --> "Idiot conspiracy theorists think that bombs are the only things capable of causing explosions."<--
And here your comment is: "silent explosives".
You can't have it both brother. Were there any explosion that could be heard or not?
Scenario 2: Highly sophisticated secret military "black op" demolitions were used to tear down the buildings (as you can see in the footage above.)
You blindly believe in the first one, even though the official "science" to back that up is heavily flawed and false, and call us on the CD side "nuts"?? LOL!
@Thetan1974 Do you not blindly believe scenario #2 even though your "science" that backs it up is heavily flawed and, in many areas, simply false? How, in that case, are you any different than the "idiots" who believe scenario 1? Regardless, this video only helps to further prove the collapse happened as explained in scenario 1 - the force of the floors collapsing would send air rushing downwards, blasting out all the windows. The survivors in the staircase reported a huge blast of air, too.
There's really no flawed science behind the independant research for truth. Please tell me what's flawed in it? That they can't get to the bottom of what happened due to the cover-up and calling those missing dots "flawed" is mere hypocrisy; you still cling on to the not-researched fire HYPOTHESIS.
You're just guessing about the squibs. Here's what you need to know:
"The survivors in the staircase reported a huge blast of air, too"
@shane9999100 Look at the video dude, not only are the windows being blown out, but also the steel outer frame is blasted to shreds. LOOK at the video FCOL.
Also look at the speed at which the expulsions run down the building. And what is that scenario 1? Is there an official report about this scenario? NIST didn't bother to explain the collapses themselves, they just Assumed that the structure would collapse from top to bottom, on the basis of an unproven crazy theory by Dr. Bazant.
It's not magic: It's science. Steel expands and weakens in fires, dumbass. A building isn't going to stand if the tens of millions of joules of energy built up in the top floors releases, and crashes down on top of the rest. And do you really expect that a fairly sub-standard building like wtc7 that was just smothered by 100 tonne pieces of debris and then left to burn for hours will remain standing?
What good claims have you come up with in the last 10 years? Silent Invisa-bombs?
It's not magic: It's science. Steel expands and weakens in fires, dumbass. A building isn't going to stand if the tens of millions of joules of energy built up in the top floors releases, and crashes down on top of the rest. And do you really expect that a fairly sub-standard building like wtc7 that was just smothered by 100 tonne pieces of debris and then left to burn for hours will remain standing?
What good claims have you come up with in the last 10 years? Silent Invisabombs?
All the good claims is at AE911Truth. org; it's all the unexplained phenomenons that NIST ignored. It's the secret building 7 data that would "jeopardize public safety" LOL. It's the unexpained - yet admitted by NIST - freefall by 7. It's the nano-thermite - and if it's NOT nano-thermite. you just go ahead and show what paint or whatever contains these excact red/gray thermitical chips.
Do you really expect the debris from WTC to have any influence on the WTC 7 collapse? Guess what NIST CONCLUDES that the collapse was primarily due to the fires and that the damage from the debris was of no insignificance.
The "tens of millions of joules energy" cannot answer for crashing through the path of greatest resistance and at the same time causing the powderizing of the buildings and simultaneously create the explosive forces that hurled the girders up and away etc.
@Thetan1974 The reason the fires were so significant was because the plane impacts blasted the fireproofing away. The towers did not have concrete to protect its steel supports like the Empire State Building or other high rises that suffered severe fires. Steel trusses, which made up the floors of the towers, can fail in as little as 5 minutes if exposed unprotected to fires.
The fires were not "so significant" and even though the fire proofing were "blasted away"(?) from only that 5% of the jet fuel that was left, the buildings wouldn't powderize like that hurling steel girders up and away hundreds of feet with explosive force, powderize on their way through the path of greatest resistance, create "rocket debris" with trails of alu oxide after them, nano-thermite in the dust and pools of molten steel that couldn't be put out until 4 months later.
@Thetan1974 The problem with the towers is that the floor trusses were necessary to keep the columns aligned. As the floors sagged due to fire, they pulled on the outer columns and caused them to buckle. This buckling is seen in multiple videos and pictures. You can see the south tower's exterior columns buckling inwards severely and finally snapping in half.
A) A regular stooge who at some point came across 9/11 truthing, can't stand it and spent too much of your life now trying to close your eyes to the never answered phenomenons and that the NIST reports are false, because you would end up in the nuthouse if you understood that 9/11 was an inside job
B) A paid CointelPro agent
I don't care what you are. You're desperate ways here only convinces me harder that 9/11 was an inside job.
You clearly see the top of the south tower tip and fall over and then get powderized in mid air before it should have hit the ground in one piece. No official explaination for that and no, gravity alone would not cause that powdering.
You see debris falling faster than free fall and even in a "rocket manner" fly around with a white trail of alu oxide.
"What good claims," you ask? What stupid question - but psychologically, you're most likely not able to see them. Pure self defence.
@Thetan1974 If you think the south tower top would hit the ground in one piece then you have absolutely no understanding of the forces involved here. Buildings are made of thousands of components for one, and not solid objects. Momentum from gravity is more than enough to cause the top half to shred itself to pieces as it collides with the bottom half. One floor's distance of free fall to due to that floor collapsing would cause the upper half to impact the bottom with 30 times its own weight.
If you think that the top of the south tower would naurally powderize like that in mid air while also work as the "pile driver" you have absolutely no idea of how much in denial you are about the collapse obviously being cd's.
@DrVresig Yes, the building provides some resistance, but not nearly enough. There is a big difference between how buildings handle static and dynamic loads (Google this). But, even when ignoring that, the floor below the collapsing section would not be strong enough to withstand the top section impacting it with 30 times its own weight. Each floor would collapse as the floors above impacted them, because none of them provide enough resistance to slow the top section down and stop the collapse.
@DrVresig Also, the equal and opposite force is why the top section was destroyed before the reaching the ground. Neither the floors in the bottom nor the top section could stay intact after impacting each other so they just turned each other to dust and steel.
@DrVresig The top section of the south tower was more like 1/4th than 1/t0th. Basically, you shouldn't think of the building as a solid object. If the 80th floor collapsed, for example, then the 81st floor would impact the 79th with the weight of 870 floors (30 times weight of upper 29 floors). This would destroy both 79th and 81st floors. Then the 82nd would impact the 78th and the same thing would happen repeatedly until the top is destroyed, but the mass is still there and still has momentum.
@DrVresig The north tower was more like 1/8. But still, kinetic energy from 1/8 of the building impacting the floor below with several times its weight was enough to cause that floor collapse. You need to think on a per-floor basis. Neither that floor nor the floors below could provide enough resistance to stop the collapse. And yes, a lot of the mass gets pulverized and blown away, but not the majority, and more mass is added with each floor. I recommend Googling "Static v. Dynamic Loading".
@InvernessMoon So how does your theory explain that the damage area (fire+plane crash) of the north tower collapsed/pulverized/blown away at the exact same rate/acceleration as the undamaged area?
@DrVresig Considering the level of kinetic energy involved, even from falling the distance of a single floor, whether the structure was damaged or not wouldn't make a real difference.
As for a measurable jolt, I've seen one on several videos of the south tower collapse. The first floor to be pancaked lets out a distinct explosion of dust, and there is a slight delay before the next floor is pancaked, only in that instance. Afterwards, there is too much momentum to show even the smallest jolt.
@DrVresig Yes it does. For there to be a noticeable jolt, something needs to offer a significant enough resistance. There was nothing that could offer that in this case. The momentum of the top section was too great.
@DrVresig Yeah, I've seen that video before. It's very flawed. The first mistake many people make is trying to compare the WTC towers to Jenga towers, cinder blocks, or smaller buildings only a fraction of the size and of different construction. He is also likening the building sections to solid objects, which is flawed. All that needs to happen is the top section collapses one floor without that floor stopping further collapse. Once you have that then each floor will collapse as momentum grows.
Never mind that one floor needs to collapse evenly that is, perpendicular to the ground, to fall straight onto the lower floors, to avoid toppling. Oh and it needs to do that each and every time it hits a lower floor, otherwise it will topple.
Other than that, if only a couple of columns were intact during failure of a floor, the decent would not happen in freefall and it would not be straight down. That's why CD's are done by pro's and it takes extreme precision.
@DrVresig As for that missing jolt. Like I said before. The greater the forces involved the less noticeable the jolt will be. Trying to compare 15 floors of the tower collapsing onto the floor beneath to a hammer and a nail or a stack of cinder blocks (a silly demonstration I have seen elsewhere) is nonsensical.
@DrVresig The hammer comparison was only one of the flaws with it, but it was a pretty significant one.
Whether 1/3 is crushing 2/3 or 1/8 is crushing 7/8 is irrelevant. What matters is the mass of the portions and the resistance offered by the part being crushed. Like I said before, the WTC towers were not solid objects, and the scale of towers meant that immense forces were involved. The columns were meant to hold up a static load, not 30-15 floors of the tower falling at 19 mph.
@InvernessMoon "Whether 1/3 is crushing 2/3 or 1/8 is crushing 7/8 is irrelevant. "
LOL!
Dude, go back to highschool, ask ur physicsteacher what he thinks about that statement.
"Immense forces were involved' , of course there were. Imagine the extreme force of resistance of an intact 95-story steel tower, or an 80-story one. And as u get lower, the resistance gets bigger, because the beams get thicker. Ur theories have no basis in reality, u need to go back to school.
@theawecabinet That's because of momentum. The floor below the one that collapsed in the south tower could be expected to slow the rate of collapse by less than 1%. Google "static v. dynamic loading" and check out the last two paragraphs of the first result. Also, the WTC towers were not concrete buildings.
You can measure the rate of acceleration and it will tell you what's happening. In the case of the twin towers it tells us that a significant proportion of the resistance is being removed. The top sections are falling into a void.
The twin towers are like an actor feigning a punch. We see his head jerk to one side and we 'see' a punch.
If the TT had been brought down any faster the top sections would have been left hanging in the air!
@theawecabinet Sorry, but that is incorrect. There is resistance, but not nearly enough, not even 3%, of what would be necessary to stop the collapse. You can't expect any single floor to effectively resist 30 floors falling on top of it, not even 15 in the case of the north tower. Based on what you've said, it doesn't seem like you read the page I suggested you search for on Google, because it explains why this is with simple math.
@DrVresig Yeah, the abstract tells me that the author doesn't understand the difference between static and dynamic loading. Just because the lower section is supposed to support the upper section and several times more weight when it is stationary doesn't mean it will do the same when it is moving. Also, this is a matter of the topmost floor of the lower section resisting the momentum of the upper section, rather than the entire lower section resisting the entire upper section.
So the floors were progressively destroyed by the mass of the top sections coming down, yes?
Then the top sections would be being destroyed at AT LEAST the same rate (in practice faster because the tower's were built much stronger as you moved down the building).
And so according to YOUR OWN theory the top sections would only have been able to destroy 15 - 30 floors below them before there was nothing left of them.
@theawecabinet The first bit is correct, second is wrong. The floors in the top section were progressively destroyed as they destroyed floors in the bottom section. However, that doesn't mean the collapsing mass suddenly disappears. Also, remember that the mass of each floor in the bottom section is added to the collapse when destroyed by the top section. A significant amount of mass was ejected from the sides in both cases when floors impacted each other, but not enough to stop the collapse.
Also, the floors in the towers were the weak points. They're more easily destroyed, and when they pancaked, the exterior columns lost the connections that kept them stable, causing them to fall inwards and hit the core columns or outwards in large sheets that you can see in pictures of the remaining debris pile.
You avoided the question. And I shall take that as your answer.
In both towers the massive core structure was destroyed at the same time and at the same rate as the rest of the structure (apart from a few columns of one of the towers which survived a few seconds longer).
Therefore your theory doesn't make any sense. Thee outer walls could not have been falling inwards during the collapse as the floors were still there! And at no point did the core structures stick out the top.
@theawecabinet I didn't avoid the question. Also, you're wrong about the core structure in both towers. The core of the South Tower, 60 floors of it, stood for about 20-25 seconds after the floors and exterior columns had collapsed around it. You can see this in several videos, though with difficulty due to the dust. The ABC video also shows one of the exterior columns falling backwards and striking what is later revealed to be the core after more of the dust is blown away.
The core of the north tower ("the spire") also stood longer than the floors or outer columns, but not as long as the south tower core. The cores "stuck out the top" for both towers. The core of the south tower lasted longer, and was more intact, I believe, because the upper section fell at an angle so most of its core fell into the floors instead of the core of the lower section.
@theawecabinet Also, a small correction for what I said before. The part of the core of the south tower that remained was about 40 floors high, rather than 60. The 60 applies to the tallest remaining piece of the north tower's core visible in several videos and called "the spire."
@theawecabinet I told you that the first bit, progressive destruction by the top section, was correct. What isn't correct is the collapse stopping after the upper section had been completely destroyed.
No part of the South Tower remained standing in the end, but the core of the South Tower remained standing relatively long after the floors and outer columns had collapsed. To say that the cores of either tower were destroyed at the same time and at the rate as the rest is completely inaccurate.
@theawecabinet As for what other force could explain it: the force of a collapsing building. Exactly what was clocked at over 70 mph in a horizontal direction? Perhaps you mean the wall of the south tower that emerged from the smoke after the collapsing upper section disappeared into it?
You admit that you can't actually account for such explosive ejections, is that right?
But you're saying instead that the video evidence of such explosive ejections (with speeds measured using accurate tracking software) is LESS reliable than the IDEA you have (based on ?????) that nobody heard explosions that were loud enough (quantified how????) to cause such ejections?
@theawecabinet I'm not admitting that. All of the "explosive ejections" in that collapse were the result of the collapse, not explosives. There is nothing happening that would suggest explosives instead of the progressive collapse that was witnessed. The speed of the debris doesn't change that. You have a baseless assertion that it could only be caused by explosives when you witnessed the event during a collapse. But again, why don't you point out what debris was measured moving that fast.
@theawecabinet There is this pattern. People are ignorant of the mechanics of the collapse of the towers because WTC has a unique construction and scale among buildings that have been damaged in such a manner. Instead of doing simple things like math and understanding why the WTC's structure contributed to its downfall, people fill in the gaps in their knowledge with conspiracy theories. It seems to be like how people used to say lightning was caused by God due to their ignorance.
@InvernessMoon "..people are ignorant of the mechanics of the collapse."
What ppl? These ppl?!
watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ
"..fill in the gaps in their knowledge with conspiracy theories.."
This is DOUBLE THINK
The 9/11 Commission was instructed to NOT examine the event beyond 'collapse initiation' and NOT even LOOK for evidence of explosives. THEY are the ones filling in the gaps - not groups like A&E for 9/11 Truth.
They are the ones challenging the official conspiracy theory!
@DrVresig Even if the top was turned to steel and dust, the most of mass is still there (the rest being ejected out the sides), and still falling through the building and collapsing the floors. Of course, you have to add to that the momentum of the floors in the lower section that collapsed due to the impact. The towers also depended on the floors to keep the outer columns standing. When floors were torn away in collapse, the outer columns fell over or were knocked in large sheets from debris.
To ignore these phenomenons and produce a suspect and flawed (NIST) report, that 99% of the endependant architects and engineers - who STUDY the matter and SPEAK UP about it - call false and which left out the scientific method, is NOT science. Sorry.
@zxer91 And by stating this u make urself known to be a totally ignorant maybe (maybe not ;) ) not too bright type of person. You obviously don't know much about that official story, let alone are you capable of accurately describing the various positions of the TM and the various scientists that support a new investigation?
The ones who stay silent & do not speak out about the fraudulent scam of an investigation that NIST conducted, those are the ones who are a disgrace, to any real American
Never seen this vid before, and I've seen every vid there is. Where did u find it/get it?
I think it would be a good idea to make others (like MKMonarch, WTCdemolitions and 911allcausticcamera) aware of this vid. The images are pretty damning, I haven't the ripping apart of the outer steel structure any better and more graphic than this.
@DrVresig Yes I know about Nate aka Xenomorph911TC, He was the first user (I know about) that started collecting all available vids about all 3 collapses. That was many years ago now, and he's kept at it. But these other 3 users I wrote about, one of them had his account closed (WTCdemolitions), the other 2 are still in business, so maybe I'll give them a hint.
Thanx for the work u've been putting up here, keep it going.
Oh man, that looks shit scary. If you were on the bottom floor, sure you could run outside, but the risk of getting hit by large debris and getting knocked out and possibly killed would of been just frightening. I'm sure people would of took that risk, it would of been a tiny bit better then actually being in the building.
Bless every, single soul of the victims, the families, the friends and everyone affected that day. <3
The building just spitting out steel support beams like throwing a bucket of tooth picks. That is crazy. I never saw this video. God Bless any one who was inside. I'm sure it was horrific.
Should not even bother to waste my time, but I think people in the bleeping bulidings would notice demo crews working in them placing explosives. Just saying.
It's simple. The plane hits, fire starts melts floor trusses. Once the top of the tower starts to move it's not stopping.
that ain't no pancaking,,,,,,,that's exploding
bigbopper993 3 weeks ago
great post...the only 9/11 video you'll ever need to watch ! DEBUNK THIS !
Emin7 2 months ago
If those are the "FLOORS" its falling with no resistance how come it falling way faster then the debris??? And it caught up to other falling debris on the way down how is that possible?
Dantedijon 2 months ago
To all of you who still dream of the pressure theory...How come bursts are so far away from the actual point of collapse ?
Emin7 2 months ago
@baseballnut8489 did you watch that vid below someone showed me? You should
Dantedijon 2 months ago
@roquefortiles show me proof
Dantedijon 2 months ago
@Dantedijon Show me proof there are explosives lol... I also think its important to note that its quite possible we are just seeing the outer covering of the columns being ripped away by the sheer force of dispelled air that also breaks the glass. One thing with all of these videos is the smoke obscures EVERYTHING! There are pieces of the building that remain intact for seconds behind the giant smoke screen in some of the videos I've watched
No explosives here
baseballnut8489 2 months ago
Contact with Spanger.
TheTodd1977 3 months ago
wow i just made a comment about the last video i watched saying its the best vid of a controlled demolition of north or south tower but let me recant that because shit man this is it right here
777thefreedomfighter 3 months ago
That wasnt windows popping out thats steel beams literally being bent outwards how is that possible???
Dantedijon 3 months ago
@Dantedijon good question,have you seen pictures of the twisted beams? Where did all the concrete go? watch?v=M4XDN9sY3GI&list=FLJoLKgA6rQ_a_qjj56e1y2A&index=2&feature=plpp_video
sparkie72 2 months ago
clearly shows explosive action. the idea that columns buckled (simultaneously and in perfect harmony across the entire perimeter all the way down), is ABSURD. Anyone viewing this and still accepting the "official" explanation of 9/11 is clearly and thoroughly brainwashed to the nth degree.
Thanks for posting!
andybb10 3 months ago 3
@andybb10
'clearly shows explosive action'??? so not the air being pushed down the stairwells and elevator shafts and blowing out the windows? No, i mean that's far too logical? Stop sticking up for Muslims and loving Al Qaeda and Taliban.
Stu3100 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stu3100 ..."so not the air being pushed down the stairwells and elevator shafts and blowing out the windows? No, i mean that's far too logical? Stop sticking up for Muslims and loving Al Qaeda and Taliban."
HAHAHA....I only love my family, truth and justice. Stu, please, take that head out of your arse, man!
And how about the central columns (arguably, the strongest part of the structure)? How did those come undone? Please, use the remaining few brain-cells you've got left and THINK!
andybb10 3 months ago
@Stu3100 mhmm, man you better look in to one of the buildings that fell down perfectly (like the towers, I mean really? Fucking neat little pile with out explosives? Give me a break) and had a crimp, EXACTLY how demo experts do it? Get educated you fool, your country is just greedy for Oil. 9/11 was a hoax. Plus... 66 or so video cameras aimed at the pentagon, and not one saw the plane hit it? Hmmm.. Man I better just blindly follow my government, they have a good history with truth.. idiot
TheFrostbite57 2 months ago
@andybb10 You don't understand what you are looking at for one thing.
There isn't an explosive to be had in any of the buildings. The collapses would look ENTIRELY different if there were.
A concrete floor secured on each end by a bracket and a 5/8th's inch bolt is going to offer no support to collapsing 14 stories. Wouldn't stand a chance. The columns hold the weight. The floors are not engineered for a load like this. Their job is to support the columns.
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@roquefortfiles ...I don't know whether to LOL or cry with this rubbish. Are people really THAT stupid, I ask myself.
OK rocky, exactly HOW would it look like if it were explosives? As for ur childish 'explanation', the floors WERE DESIGNED to hold ALL the load above. Also, ANY size bolt would offer at least SOME resistance - which would show down any downward movement. FREE-FALL zero resistance - IMPOSSIBLE without explosives!
andybb10 2 months ago
@andybb10 The building does not fall at free fall. That's a fallacy. Its falling fast absolutely. But not at free fall.
No you're wrong about the floors. They do not carry vertical loads. The columns do that. The floors have a load limit and its about 1500 tons. Now we'll drop 31 stories on it.. Some 180,000 tons IN MOTION (huge difference of static load to dynamic load).
There is no floor system anywhere capable of holding this. It would fail instantly.
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@roquefortfiles ...LOL I'd say, if I were YOUR physics teacher, the only thing that would FAIL INSTANTLY would be YOU!!
Even by your flawed logic, if the floors 'separated' from the columns (like a piston inside a cylinder), at the end of the collapse we'd have the perimeter AND core columns essentially standing there. It was the columns that carried the load and they had to be removed in a highly synchronized sequence, all the way around - hence the symmetry.
andybb10 2 months ago
@andybb10 BTW. That's written by a structural engineer. So...
If you bother to examine the collapse of WTC 2 you will see how the upper 31 stories has rotated over and now has its Eastern edge resting inside the exterior wall. This wall is peeled off almost intact. Its rotation point is about floor 48. The upper 31 stories is sheering off all of the floor connections along that outer wall.
There are no explosives here.
roquefortfiles 2 months ago
@roquefortfiles No there are no explosives here, no question it's just airpressure at work here, I can see it clearly now, very clear.
Still wondering though about that stream of molten metal, the sudden failure of all steel columns, the time in which this was supposedly reached while no inferno was visible at all, the fact that so much material was turned into a fine powder, the fact that NIST used very little beams to try & support their ludicrous theory of fire-induced collapse, that's all
Sandberg1972 4 days ago
@Sandberg1972 Explosives do not turn floors an acre across in to powder. In fact explosives are a very lousy material to do this.
But massive grinding weight sure as hell does turn concrete into powder. The level of fragmentation seen could be achieved at 1.5 gigajoules of energy.
The collapse produced nearly 3.5 Gigajoules of energy on the floors.
Far more than enough to turn it to dust.
roquefortfiles 4 days ago
@roquefortfiles Aahhhhh, I see, it's the and I quote "massive grinding weight" that would and I quote "sure as hell turn concrete into powder". Sure as hell ey? Rrrrrrrright.
Just throw around some impressive energynumbers & all of a sudden it's possible, right? In fact it's "far more than enough", even though this phenomenon has never ever been seen before anywhere on Earth.
Just imagine, as soon as the 1st lower floor gets hit: pufff, an acre of concrete gets turned into dust, just like that
Sandberg1972 4 days ago
@Sandberg1972 LOL!!
ight? In fact it's "far more than enough", even though this phenomenon has never ever been seen before anywhere on Earth
Oh..!! And the phenomenon of a 110 story building collapsing has been seen?.. WHERE??
Oh yeah. It hasn't!!
One floor with 31 stories falling on it?
Give me a break. You're talking the weight of 1/3rd of the building landing on one floor.
The failure point is where the plane hit it. Everything above that is descending on the lower floors.
roquefortfiles 3 days ago
@roquefortfiles "The failure point is where the plane hit it. Everything above that is descending on the lower floors."
Yes except those 30 floors of WTC2 did not descend straight down but instead were leaning to the east and, without the use of explosives, should've toppled off, as the centre of gravity of the 30-storyblock would shift off centre more and more, until it would go outside of the footprint of the building.
So, anything u'd like to say?
Sandberg1972 2 days ago
@Sandberg1972 without the use of explosives, should've toppled off, as the centre of gravity of the 30-storyblock would shift off centre more and more, until it would go outside of the footprint of the building.
No.. No no. We are not talking about a set of building blocks here. The gravity loads all are directed straight down. The building is basically hollow inside. 90% of it is just air.
More than enough weight to bring down the structure.
roquefortfiles 2 days ago
@Sandberg1972ust imagine, as soon as the 1st lower floor gets hit: pufff, an acre of concrete gets turned into dust, just like that
Your talking 4 inches of concrete against a descending mass of 31 floors? 650 tonnes per floor of concrete??
Do the math!! its not even a contest. And as i said a report i read calculated the crush resistance of the concrete to be about 1.5 Gigajoules. That would render it POWDER.
The collapse generated nearly 3.5.
How hard is this to grasp?
roquefortfiles 3 days ago
@roquefortfiles The "descending mass" you describe consists of mostly air (as some like to make it look like the lower part was pretty weak & ready to be annihilated). Ever seen nearly all the concrete turn to dust in a regular CD? I haven't.
In order to crush something u need it to resist very heavily. But there was hardly any resistance to the collapses, something NIST tried to pretend was normal to assume, even though there wasn't any basis to do so.
U can't have it both ways.
Sandberg1972 2 days ago
@Sandberg1972 But there was hardly any resistance to the collapses, something NIST tried to pretend was normal to assume, even though there wasn't any basis to do so.
No you're completely wrong.
The collapse was nothing BUT resistance.
In a CD the charges remove the resistance as the structure falls. Everything is moving together. The debris lands at its footprint.
This is not happening at the WTC. The entire collapse is complete resistance being spewed 500 feet sideways
roquefortfiles 2 days ago
@Sandberg1972 U can't have it both ways.
And we don't have it both ways. You simply don't understand what you're talking about.
Go and have a look at LANDMARK implosion. Firstly.. (Umm. listen to it!! that should be enough for you LOL!!)
Secondly. Notice how this building is falling? Cohesively as a unit. It is not being laid out for a block in every direction. Why? Because the resistance is being removed by the charges.
The WTC is nothing BUT resistance.
roquefortfiles 2 days ago
@Sandberg1972 It always amazes me how far they go to keep avoiding the crucial issues about that fateful day,
Such as what?
roquefortfiles 3 days ago
@roquefortfiles
-airdefence failures
-NIST's fraudulent reports
-government cover up/stonewalling
-collusion between hijackers and intel agencies
None of this seems to concern you, fine by me. But what's all the fuzz about then? Why protest so much? Why not let me be the fool, and you just worry about your own life, u see?
This video is clear enough for anyone to get to grips with reality.
This is explosive action we're watching in this vid. But u're free to believe it's airpressure
Sandberg1972 2 days ago
@Sandberg1972airdefence failures
Uh.. NO!!.. Go and look at the time lines of each jet. There WAS no time to do anything about this. That's thing that gets me angry. People don't understand what they are talking about on this.
Go do a Google search on U 175 timeline. Taken DIRECTLY from ATC reports. There was all but 15 mins from the time it was DECLARED a hijack to the time it hit the buildings. No time to do ZIP.
Explosive action?..
Nope!! Been there dude!!
roquefortfiles 2 days ago
@Sandberg1972This is explosive action we're watching in this vid. But u're free to believe it's airpressure
Explosive action? With what? Silent explosives?.. There is a camera crew 800 feet from this building as it collapses. They record nothing. Not one bang not one charge.
Ever experienced shape charges? I have.
Let me assure you there is no way on this earth your going to have a camera crew 800 feet away record nothing.
I have done exactly this. Its not remotely possible.
roquefortfiles 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@roquefortfiles Some other crucial issues u've failed to answer thusfar:
The streams of molten metal, the sudden failure of all steel columns, the time in which this was supposedly reached while no inferno was visible at all, the fact that so much material was turned into a fine powder, the fact that NIST used very little beams to try & support their ludicrous theory of fire-induced collapse.
U covered only the concrete turning to dust bit, and did a very poor job I might add.
Wake up.
Sandberg1972 2 days ago
@andybb10 have you prove of your claim about Explosives? If so can you show the seismic activity,the lack of damage to the bathtub.How can an Aluminium plane cause this to happen?If you state thermite,what of the unburnt paper? watch?v=M4XDN9sY3GI&list=FLJoLKgA6rQ_a_qjj56e1y2A&index=2&feature=plpp_video
sparkie72 2 months ago
amazing shot bro where'd you get it?
MysticalGrooveWTC 3 months ago
@MysticalGrooveWTC FOIA: Release_27\42A0239 - G26D114\VIDEO_TS\VTS_01_1.vob
Just google --> 911datasets <--
DrVresig 3 months ago
@DrVresig ah ha don't have 27 yet, i'll check it out, cheers!
MysticalGrooveWTC 3 months ago
I hasn't behave like a steel building collapse, maybe because of the bolted perimeter column sections, these section were 3 strory's high each, but i don't think so!
74pbg 3 months ago
Nobody people are INTELLIGENT, read with me and THINK!!: HOW we can see from BELOW the ejectec debris fron the face of the tower, its more faster then the free fall speed of upper debris? jajajaja,jejejeje: OBIOUSLY THIS IS IMPOSIBLE for the physics laws: What we can see are the EXPLOSIONS of the controled demolition FASTER than the upper debris at FREE FALL SPEED.
ANY STUPID DEBUNKER HERE? 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. FUCK TO THE STUPIDS!!!
Inigo37 3 months ago
@Inigo37 Your statement is as smart as your gammar........ THINK MAN, THINK!!!!!! And obviously, he saw one of the towers collapse. IT DID NOT EXPLODE.
TheMJDCProductions 3 months ago
@TheMJDCProductions English is NOT MY MOTHER LANGUAJE MAN!, WTC DID NOT ESPLODE?? jejeje: see yourself an wakeup: Youtube: New view of the WTC2 collapse. Take the video with this name, is a short video (9seconds more or les). In the 3-4 second an innoportune comentarist begin to speak, forget his voice, an listen the sound o the collapse, in the 4-5second a BIG SOUND OF EXPLOSION is CLEARLY listen, and one debrish in front of the wall is push to down at MUCH MORE SPEED of the UPPER DEBRIS.
Inigo37 3 months ago
The funny thing is you seem to think no one would have noticed the demo crews that just happened to be installing exposives under peoples desks for a few weeks. It' s just a compression wave.
LoneWulff829 3 months ago
@Inigo37
Explosives + nano thermite no need nuclear too dangerous for new York citizens during the years after the demolitions.That was not Tchernobyl but i dont understand how rescuers had huge problems of illness after they work on the site. I would say it because of ammonium used in the explosives.
frankito78 3 months ago
Only explosives can pulverise concrete into small dust like this . Common wake up americans !
frankito78 3 months ago
@frankito78 You are wrong, only nuclear underground explosion can pulverize concrete. This is NOT A JOKE:
Youtube: Dimitry Khalezov. And his banned book on Amazon: The Third Thurth. The explosives was a secondary force or help force to collapse. The most incredible is the thruth. Was a nuclear demoliton, see the videos please. I am from Basque country Land (North of Spain) four years wake up from now.
Inigo37 3 months ago
no one can tell me that is "structural faillure" the towers are a lot stronger at the ground, because the ground part holds the upper part. no way it can come down this way...think about it !
toumatsch 4 months ago
that we see: explosions
q09l15 4 months ago
@q09l15 Nope, they are ALL ejections, very violent ejections ALL directly caused by the gigantic mass in descent, not one explosion among them.
you and all who think theyre explosions are IDIOTS.
LHOdidntdoit 4 months ago
@LHOdidntdoit yh this ejections were caused by the huge mass of building falling BUT you should see the video I just saw, I dont even believe in all this conspiracy theories but I swear to God you can see an explosion
segochito 4 months ago
@segochito And?
what video was that?
LHOdidntdoit 4 months ago
@LHOdidntdoit "World Trade Centre collapse very close to towers"
segochito 4 months ago
@segochito its the same thing all ejections no explosions.
If it was explosive demo there would be explosions to get the bldgs moving.
On 911 its the opposite, bldgs move then the ejections.
Its the easiest way to tell the difference.
LHOdidntdoit 4 months ago
@LHOdidntdoit you are the idiot
way2easy2love 3 months ago
@way2easy2love Ooooh im shuttering, Im so destroyed!
LMBO is more like it.
Thanks for the devastating come back, you made my day!
LHOdidntdoit 3 months ago
@LHOdidntdoit just tryn to use words you can hopefully understand
way2easy2love 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@way2easy2love I think everyone gets the sentence "you are the idiot".
Also, everyone sees the meaningless of it.
What are you, 20 months old?
LHOdidntdoit 3 months ago
When one thing happens it is a freak incident, when two things happen it is a trend, when three things happen it is a plan.
3 buildings straight down, ....
deathmetalhippy 4 months ago
@deathmetalhippy WROONNG. You forgot to mention: WTC3, WTC4, WTC5 and WTC6. If so many buildings fell, IT MUST HAVE BEEN AN INSIDE JOB. No. It was just a chain reaction, two huge buildings fell, buildings around it fell, buildings around those were damaged, whole city covered in dust.
NickWaterfall 4 months ago
@deathmetalhippy i believe the official count has to reach 8 before and event cannot be called random. but hey what do i know im just a scientist
figgywurmack 4 months ago
@figgywurmack I was quoting Transportation Sec Norman Mineta
deathmetalhippy 4 months ago
@deathmetalhippy i have no idea what that is
figgywurmack 4 months ago
the fact that three huge buildings came falling straight down in a perfect manner, is more than a unlikely coincidence it is a plan.
One thing is a freak incident, two is a trend, three is a plan.
deathmetalhippy 4 months ago
demolition, you must be blind if you don't see it
WeedHeadPig 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'TUESDAY MORNING IN SEPTEMBER'. Available on DVD. Runtime 130 minutes. Pure, unfiltered, authentic, and being released in such a way to keep its integrity. Project is not affiliated and or connected to, working for any organization, putting forth propaganda and or slant perspectives of the events on 9/11. It is the most complete video chronicle in real time of the wtc attacks.
(never before seen)
TuesdayMorningInSept 4 months ago
@CanNibble True.
MazJax 4 months ago
It's really sad how people sad how people handle their ignorance by coming up with wild nonsense. In the old days, people couldn't explain lightning said God did it. Nowadays, people who are too ignorant to understand why the towers fell say the government did it. The collapse of the towers happened according to the laws of physics. If you think otherwise then you're simply missing part of the equation. Government conspiracies do not belong in that equation.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon
It's very sad how blind sheep accept the crminial cover-up of what happened on 9/11 and the removal of evidence on the scene. Since then, the perpertraitors who control the US congress have come up with peposterous lies about "Osama & the 19 Hijackers" which first of all has never been proven and is slowly getting more and more threatened by the architects, engineers and scientists who once believed the official fairy tale but then they actually took time to check NIST reports.
Thetan1974 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon
"Nowadays, people who are too ignorant to understand why the towers fell..."
Excactly: Most people still think "2 767's and some fires caused the powderizing "collapses" of 3 steel framed hi-risers and all the unexplained phenomenons that NIST ignores."
Actually, the NIST report is excactly the same as saying that God made lightning.
Thetan1974 4 months ago
Osama Bin Laden is dead because God was very mad at Osama Bin Laden!!!
gocountry1391 4 months ago
pancake my arse !! dont you see hundreds of explosions you blind muppet ?
Emin7 4 months ago
I'd like to get my hands on one of those magical silent invisible bombs that many people say somehow caused the pancake collapse of the wtc towers and check one out for myself!
MazJax 4 months ago
@MazJax You can probably get some in the magic land were the pancake theory also exist.
The link I posted 3 days has really good explosion sound in it, and there are many many many many explosion witnesses out there.
Stop trolling and start googling.
DrVresig 4 months ago
Definitely a pancake collapse
halftimesportscards 4 months ago
@halftimesportscards Not even NIST supports the pancake theory.
DrVresig 4 months ago
@DrVresig It's quite obviously a pancake collapse when you look at the video. The dust clouds being ejected out the sides are distinctive enough to distinguish where each floor is being crushed.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
The pattern of those bursts matches the structural assembly of truss sections, and the area of the worst damage after the top part leaned in that direction and crumbled everything beneath it.
endimion17 4 months ago
Impressive close up evidence.
faro0485 5 months ago
Look at all that air bursting out of the windows.
Too bad you cut the sound out. Now we can't hear those "explosions" the conspiracy theorists keep talking about!
MazJax 5 months ago
@MazJax If you like to hear the sounds of explosions you may wanna check this one out: watch?v=1bSiHIxMMD8
DrVresig 5 months ago
@MazJax
Yes that's some powerful air, breaking all the steel connections and hurling the outer sections outward. Look again dude, the structure is being methodically demolished, it don't get anymore graphic than this.
I'm sure DrVresig did not cut the sound out, that's what NIST very likely had done, since they are the source of these FOIA requests.
Btw there's a tremendous roar during the "collapse" of both towers that you can hear fairly easily, is that steel banging steel?
Sandberg1972 5 months ago
@Sandberg1972 Yeah, there's absolutely no possible way the millions of joules of energy from 500,000 tonne collapsing floors hurdling down a drop of 1000 feet would EVER damage those steel columns. Hell no. Steel is the strongest metal in existence, isn't it?
Unlike the explosives they typically use in Cont. Demos that could be easily heard from miles away, they used magical silent explosives in the twin towers, and they hid them so well that no survivor ever reported them. Amazing!
MazJax 4 months ago
@MazJax Didn't you comment this in the video i linked: --> "Idiot conspiracy theorists think that bombs are the only things capable of causing explosions."<--
And here your comment is: "silent explosives".
You can't have it both brother. Were there any explosion that could be heard or not?
DrVresig 4 months ago
@MazJax
Scenario 1: Airplanes and jet fuel fires magically demolished 3 WTC steel framed hi-risers
Scenario 2: Highly sophisticated secret military "black op" demolitions were used to tear down the buildings (as you can see in the footage above.)
You blindly believe in the first one, even though the official "science" to back that up is heavily flawed and false, and call us on the CD side "nuts"?? LOL!
Thetan1974 4 months ago
@Thetan1974 Do you not blindly believe scenario #2 even though your "science" that backs it up is heavily flawed and, in many areas, simply false? How, in that case, are you any different than the "idiots" who believe scenario 1? Regardless, this video only helps to further prove the collapse happened as explained in scenario 1 - the force of the floors collapsing would send air rushing downwards, blasting out all the windows. The survivors in the staircase reported a huge blast of air, too.
shane9999100 4 months ago
@shane9999100
There's really no flawed science behind the independant research for truth. Please tell me what's flawed in it? That they can't get to the bottom of what happened due to the cover-up and calling those missing dots "flawed" is mere hypocrisy; you still cling on to the not-researched fire HYPOTHESIS.
You're just guessing about the squibs. Here's what you need to know:
"The survivors in the staircase reported a huge blast of air, too"
Really? Is this also "air"?
watch?v=Ne1FJBVkh4s
Thetan1974 4 months ago
@shane9999100 Look at the video dude, not only are the windows being blown out, but also the steel outer frame is blasted to shreds. LOOK at the video FCOL.
Also look at the speed at which the expulsions run down the building. And what is that scenario 1? Is there an official report about this scenario? NIST didn't bother to explain the collapses themselves, they just Assumed that the structure would collapse from top to bottom, on the basis of an unproven crazy theory by Dr. Bazant.
Sandberg1972 4 months ago
@Thetan1974
It's not magic: It's science. Steel expands and weakens in fires, dumbass. A building isn't going to stand if the tens of millions of joules of energy built up in the top floors releases, and crashes down on top of the rest. And do you really expect that a fairly sub-standard building like wtc7 that was just smothered by 100 tonne pieces of debris and then left to burn for hours will remain standing?
What good claims have you come up with in the last 10 years? Silent Invisa-bombs?
MazJax 4 months ago
@Thetan1974
It's not magic: It's science. Steel expands and weakens in fires, dumbass. A building isn't going to stand if the tens of millions of joules of energy built up in the top floors releases, and crashes down on top of the rest. And do you really expect that a fairly sub-standard building like wtc7 that was just smothered by 100 tonne pieces of debris and then left to burn for hours will remain standing?
What good claims have you come up with in the last 10 years? Silent Invisabombs?
MazJax 4 months ago
@MazJax
All the good claims is at AE911Truth. org; it's all the unexplained phenomenons that NIST ignored. It's the secret building 7 data that would "jeopardize public safety" LOL. It's the unexpained - yet admitted by NIST - freefall by 7. It's the nano-thermite - and if it's NOT nano-thermite. you just go ahead and show what paint or whatever contains these excact red/gray thermitical chips.
Thetan1974 4 months ago
@MazJax
Do you really expect the debris from WTC to have any influence on the WTC 7 collapse? Guess what NIST CONCLUDES that the collapse was primarily due to the fires and that the damage from the debris was of no insignificance.
The "tens of millions of joules energy" cannot answer for crashing through the path of greatest resistance and at the same time causing the powderizing of the buildings and simultaneously create the explosive forces that hurled the girders up and away etc.
Thetan1974 4 months ago
@Thetan1974 The reason the fires were so significant was because the plane impacts blasted the fireproofing away. The towers did not have concrete to protect its steel supports like the Empire State Building or other high rises that suffered severe fires. Steel trusses, which made up the floors of the towers, can fail in as little as 5 minutes if exposed unprotected to fires.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon
The fires were not "so significant" and even though the fire proofing were "blasted away"(?) from only that 5% of the jet fuel that was left, the buildings wouldn't powderize like that hurling steel girders up and away hundreds of feet with explosive force, powderize on their way through the path of greatest resistance, create "rocket debris" with trails of alu oxide after them, nano-thermite in the dust and pools of molten steel that couldn't be put out until 4 months later.
Thetan1974 4 months ago
@Thetan1974 The problem with the towers is that the floor trusses were necessary to keep the columns aligned. As the floors sagged due to fire, they pulled on the outer columns and caused them to buckle. This buckling is seen in multiple videos and pictures. You can see the south tower's exterior columns buckling inwards severely and finally snapping in half.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon
The problem with you is that you're either
A) A regular stooge who at some point came across 9/11 truthing, can't stand it and spent too much of your life now trying to close your eyes to the never answered phenomenons and that the NIST reports are false, because you would end up in the nuthouse if you understood that 9/11 was an inside job
B) A paid CointelPro agent
I don't care what you are. You're desperate ways here only convinces me harder that 9/11 was an inside job.
Thetan1974 4 months ago
@MazJax
You clearly see the top of the south tower tip and fall over and then get powderized in mid air before it should have hit the ground in one piece. No official explaination for that and no, gravity alone would not cause that powdering.
You see debris falling faster than free fall and even in a "rocket manner" fly around with a white trail of alu oxide.
"What good claims," you ask? What stupid question - but psychologically, you're most likely not able to see them. Pure self defence.
Thetan1974 4 months ago
@Thetan1974 If you think the south tower top would hit the ground in one piece then you have absolutely no understanding of the forces involved here. Buildings are made of thousands of components for one, and not solid objects. Momentum from gravity is more than enough to cause the top half to shred itself to pieces as it collides with the bottom half. One floor's distance of free fall to due to that floor collapsing would cause the upper half to impact the bottom with 30 times its own weight.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon
If you think that the top of the south tower would naurally powderize like that in mid air while also work as the "pile driver" you have absolutely no idea of how much in denial you are about the collapse obviously being cd's.
Thetan1974 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon 30 times it's own weight? You do know that force also goes upwards, you know Newton's third.
And again, not even NIST supports the pancake theory, so how can you support it?
DrVresig 4 months ago
@DrVresig Yes, the building provides some resistance, but not nearly enough. There is a big difference between how buildings handle static and dynamic loads (Google this). But, even when ignoring that, the floor below the collapsing section would not be strong enough to withstand the top section impacting it with 30 times its own weight. Each floor would collapse as the floors above impacted them, because none of them provide enough resistance to slow the top section down and stop the collapse.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@DrVresig Also, the equal and opposite force is why the top section was destroyed before the reaching the ground. Neither the floors in the bottom nor the top section could stay intact after impacting each other so they just turned each other to dust and steel.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon "after impacting each other so they just turned each other to dust and steel."
OK, so how can 1/10 destroy 9/10 if they turned each other into dust?
DrVresig 4 months ago
@DrVresig The top section of the south tower was more like 1/4th than 1/t0th. Basically, you shouldn't think of the building as a solid object. If the 80th floor collapsed, for example, then the 81st floor would impact the 79th with the weight of 870 floors (30 times weight of upper 29 floors). This would destroy both 79th and 81st floors. Then the 82nd would impact the 78th and the same thing would happen repeatedly until the top is destroyed, but the mass is still there and still has momentum.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon Same thing should go for the north tower and thats closer to 1/10 than 1/4.
And as you said your self, they both pulverize each other at the same rate, so 1/10 vs 9/10...?
And the mass isn't still there, it gets pulverized and blown away, can't you see that in the video?
DrVresig 4 months ago
@DrVresig The north tower was more like 1/8. But still, kinetic energy from 1/8 of the building impacting the floor below with several times its weight was enough to cause that floor collapse. You need to think on a per-floor basis. Neither that floor nor the floors below could provide enough resistance to stop the collapse. And yes, a lot of the mass gets pulverized and blown away, but not the majority, and more mass is added with each floor. I recommend Googling "Static v. Dynamic Loading".
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon So how does your theory explain that the damage area (fire+plane crash) of the north tower collapsed/pulverized/blown away at the exact same rate/acceleration as the undamaged area?
And why is there no measurable jolt?
DrVresig 4 months ago
@DrVresig Considering the level of kinetic energy involved, even from falling the distance of a single floor, whether the structure was damaged or not wouldn't make a real difference.
As for a measurable jolt, I've seen one on several videos of the south tower collapse. The first floor to be pancaked lets out a distinct explosion of dust, and there is a slight delay before the next floor is pancaked, only in that instance. Afterwards, there is too much momentum to show even the smallest jolt.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@DrVresig The Static v. Dynamic Loading page I was talking about explains why this is in the last paragraph.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon No it doesn't.
DrVresig 4 months ago
@DrVresig Yes it does. For there to be a noticeable jolt, something needs to offer a significant enough resistance. There was nothing that could offer that in this case. The momentum of the top section was too great.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon No it doen't
watch?v=BH2sT2i2iek
The missing jolt: watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
DrVresig 4 months ago
@DrVresig Yeah, I've seen that video before. It's very flawed. The first mistake many people make is trying to compare the WTC towers to Jenga towers, cinder blocks, or smaller buildings only a fraction of the size and of different construction. He is also likening the building sections to solid objects, which is flawed. All that needs to happen is the top section collapses one floor without that floor stopping further collapse. Once you have that then each floor will collapse as momentum grows.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon Bullshit.
Never mind that one floor needs to collapse evenly that is, perpendicular to the ground, to fall straight onto the lower floors, to avoid toppling. Oh and it needs to do that each and every time it hits a lower floor, otherwise it will topple.
Other than that, if only a couple of columns were intact during failure of a floor, the decent would not happen in freefall and it would not be straight down. That's why CD's are done by pro's and it takes extreme precision.
Sandberg1972 4 months ago
@DrVresig As for that missing jolt. Like I said before. The greater the forces involved the less noticeable the jolt will be. Trying to compare 15 floors of the tower collapsing onto the floor beneath to a hammer and a nail or a stack of cinder blocks (a silly demonstration I have seen elsewhere) is nonsensical.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon lol you criticize the analysis because of the 5 seconds hammer-jolt explanation. Stop trolling.
How come we sees a big jolt when 1/3 crush 1/3, but not when 1/8 crush 7/8?
DrVresig 4 months ago
@DrVresig The hammer comparison was only one of the flaws with it, but it was a pretty significant one.
Whether 1/3 is crushing 2/3 or 1/8 is crushing 7/8 is irrelevant. What matters is the mass of the portions and the resistance offered by the part being crushed. Like I said before, the WTC towers were not solid objects, and the scale of towers meant that immense forces were involved. The columns were meant to hold up a static load, not 30-15 floors of the tower falling at 19 mph.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon "Whether 1/3 is crushing 2/3 or 1/8 is crushing 7/8 is irrelevant. "
LOL!
Dude, go back to highschool, ask ur physicsteacher what he thinks about that statement.
"Immense forces were involved' , of course there were. Imagine the extreme force of resistance of an intact 95-story steel tower, or an 80-story one. And as u get lower, the resistance gets bigger, because the beams get thicker. Ur theories have no basis in reality, u need to go back to school.
Sandberg1972 4 months ago
@DrVresig You can find another good piece by Googling "Why did the world trade center collapse". It should be the first result.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon ",..The greater the forces involved the less noticeable the jolt will be. ...."
Not true. The greater the difference *between* the forces is, the less noticeable the jolt will be.
For example:
speeding truck hitting concrete building = big jolt
speeding truck hitting deer on road = small jolt
concrete building has high resistive force, deer has low resistive force RELATIVE to truck.
In the case of the WTC not only was the jolt missing but the top section accelerated uniformly!
theawecabinet 4 months ago
@theawecabinet That's because of momentum. The floor below the one that collapsed in the south tower could be expected to slow the rate of collapse by less than 1%. Google "static v. dynamic loading" and check out the last two paragraphs of the first result. Also, the WTC towers were not concrete buildings.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon
You can measure the rate of acceleration and it will tell you what's happening. In the case of the twin towers it tells us that a significant proportion of the resistance is being removed. The top sections are falling into a void.
The twin towers are like an actor feigning a punch. We see his head jerk to one side and we 'see' a punch.
If the TT had been brought down any faster the top sections would have been left hanging in the air!
(And this vid shows them being blown up!)
theawecabinet 4 months ago
@theawecabinet Sorry, but that is incorrect. There is resistance, but not nearly enough, not even 3%, of what would be necessary to stop the collapse. You can't expect any single floor to effectively resist 30 floors falling on top of it, not even 15 in the case of the north tower. Based on what you've said, it doesn't seem like you read the page I suggested you search for on Google, because it explains why this is with simple math.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon Pleas read:
w w w . journalof911studies . com / volume / 2010 / Chandler Downward Acceleration Of WTC1 . pdf
DrVresig 4 months ago
@DrVresig Yeah, the abstract tells me that the author doesn't understand the difference between static and dynamic loading. Just because the lower section is supposed to support the upper section and several times more weight when it is stationary doesn't mean it will do the same when it is moving. Also, this is a matter of the topmost floor of the lower section resisting the momentum of the upper section, rather than the entire lower section resisting the entire upper section.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon
So the floors were progressively destroyed by the mass of the top sections coming down, yes?
Then the top sections would be being destroyed at AT LEAST the same rate (in practice faster because the tower's were built much stronger as you moved down the building).
And so according to YOUR OWN theory the top sections would only have been able to destroy 15 - 30 floors below them before there was nothing left of them.
Action - reaction must be equal and opposite!
Agreed?
theawecabinet 4 months ago
@theawecabinet The first bit is correct, second is wrong. The floors in the top section were progressively destroyed as they destroyed floors in the bottom section. However, that doesn't mean the collapsing mass suddenly disappears. Also, remember that the mass of each floor in the bottom section is added to the collapse when destroyed by the top section. A significant amount of mass was ejected from the sides in both cases when floors impacted each other, but not enough to stop the collapse.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
Also, the floors in the towers were the weak points. They're more easily destroyed, and when they pancaked, the exterior columns lost the connections that kept them stable, causing them to fall inwards and hit the core columns or outwards in large sheets that you can see in pictures of the remaining debris pile.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon
You avoided the question. And I shall take that as your answer.
In both towers the massive core structure was destroyed at the same time and at the same rate as the rest of the structure (apart from a few columns of one of the towers which survived a few seconds longer).
Therefore your theory doesn't make any sense. Thee outer walls could not have been falling inwards during the collapse as the floors were still there! And at no point did the core structures stick out the top.
theawecabinet 4 months ago
@theawecabinet I didn't avoid the question. Also, you're wrong about the core structure in both towers. The core of the South Tower, 60 floors of it, stood for about 20-25 seconds after the floors and exterior columns had collapsed around it. You can see this in several videos, though with difficulty due to the dust. The ABC video also shows one of the exterior columns falling backwards and striking what is later revealed to be the core after more of the dust is blown away.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
The core of the north tower ("the spire") also stood longer than the floors or outer columns, but not as long as the south tower core. The cores "stuck out the top" for both towers. The core of the south tower lasted longer, and was more intact, I believe, because the upper section fell at an angle so most of its core fell into the floors instead of the core of the lower section.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@theawecabinet Also, a small correction for what I said before. The part of the core of the south tower that remained was about 40 floors high, rather than 60. The 60 applies to the tallest remaining piece of the north tower's core visible in several videos and called "the spire."
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon
I see no other comment. (?)
No part of the South tower remained standing.
Some of the ejected material (including steel) from the towers as they came down has been clocked at over 70 mph in a horizontal direction.
What force other than explosives could possibly explain this. How do YOU account for such observations?
theawecabinet 4 months ago
@theawecabinet I told you that the first bit, progressive destruction by the top section, was correct. What isn't correct is the collapse stopping after the upper section had been completely destroyed.
No part of the South Tower remained standing in the end, but the core of the South Tower remained standing relatively long after the floors and outer columns had collapsed. To say that the cores of either tower were destroyed at the same time and at the rate as the rest is completely inaccurate.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@theawecabinet As for what other force could explain it: the force of a collapsing building. Exactly what was clocked at over 70 mph in a horizontal direction? Perhaps you mean the wall of the south tower that emerged from the smoke after the collapsing upper section disappeared into it?
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@theawecabinet Also, I find it hard to believe that nobody would have heard explosives that were powerful enough to do what you're suggesting.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon
Let me try and get this straight.
You admit that you can't actually account for such explosive ejections, is that right?
But you're saying instead that the video evidence of such explosive ejections (with speeds measured using accurate tracking software) is LESS reliable than the IDEA you have (based on ?????) that nobody heard explosions that were loud enough (quantified how????) to cause such ejections?
Have I got it right?
That is what you're saying is it?
That's it?
theawecabinet 4 months ago
@theawecabinet I'm not admitting that. All of the "explosive ejections" in that collapse were the result of the collapse, not explosives. There is nothing happening that would suggest explosives instead of the progressive collapse that was witnessed. The speed of the debris doesn't change that. You have a baseless assertion that it could only be caused by explosives when you witnessed the event during a collapse. But again, why don't you point out what debris was measured moving that fast.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@theawecabinet There is this pattern. People are ignorant of the mechanics of the collapse of the towers because WTC has a unique construction and scale among buildings that have been damaged in such a manner. Instead of doing simple things like math and understanding why the WTC's structure contributed to its downfall, people fill in the gaps in their knowledge with conspiracy theories. It seems to be like how people used to say lightning was caused by God due to their ignorance.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon "..people are ignorant of the mechanics of the collapse."
What ppl? These ppl?!
watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ
"..fill in the gaps in their knowledge with conspiracy theories.."
This is DOUBLE THINK
The 9/11 Commission was instructed to NOT examine the event beyond 'collapse initiation' and NOT even LOOK for evidence of explosives. THEY are the ones filling in the gaps - not groups like A&E for 9/11 Truth.
They are the ones challenging the official conspiracy theory!
watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
theawecabinet 4 months ago
@InvernessMoon Yeah sure, like all that mass fro the topportion would remain right above the footprint, right?
And surely, fragmented mass has exactly the same punching power as solid mass.
Ever opened a 100kg bag of sand which was over ur head? Think u'd survive that? Yes u would, because all the sand would disperse.
Now take the same 100kg of sand in a bag, then drop the bag on ur head? What would happen then?
Look up a few failed CD's, maybe the quarter will drop eventually. Good luck!
Sandberg1972 4 months ago
@DrVresig Even if the top was turned to steel and dust, the most of mass is still there (the rest being ejected out the sides), and still falling through the building and collapsing the floors. Of course, you have to add to that the momentum of the floors in the lower section that collapsed due to the impact. The towers also depended on the floors to keep the outer columns standing. When floors were torn away in collapse, the outer columns fell over or were knocked in large sheets from debris.
InvernessMoon 4 months ago
@MazJax
To ignore these phenomenons and produce a suspect and flawed (NIST) report, that 99% of the endependant architects and engineers - who STUDY the matter and SPEAK UP about it - call false and which left out the scientific method, is NOT science. Sorry.
Thetan1974 4 months ago
You idiot conspiratists are an insult and disgrace to the families who lost loved ones in the attacks.
zxer91 5 months ago
@zxer91 Really???
/watch?v=6OuV9Mr3qH8
/watch?v=frG1wnaDkQA
DrVresig 5 months ago
@zxer91 And by stating this u make urself known to be a totally ignorant maybe (maybe not ;) ) not too bright type of person. You obviously don't know much about that official story, let alone are you capable of accurately describing the various positions of the TM and the various scientists that support a new investigation?
The ones who stay silent & do not speak out about the fraudulent scam of an investigation that NIST conducted, those are the ones who are a disgrace, to any real American
Sandberg1972 5 months ago
@zxer91 , you must be a worker with the govt to hide the truth about 911. lol
loveyoufolks 4 months ago
@zxer91 you are a fucking moron, seeing as how more of the families who lost loved ones are questioning the governments story.
gspotblazin 4 months ago
Collapse? Yeah, right. *rolls eyes*.
bloggulator 5 months ago
Clearly there are explosions going off in sequence. This looks nothing like a "collapse".
robbyj325 5 months ago
Never seen this vid before, and I've seen every vid there is. Where did u find it/get it?
I think it would be a good idea to make others (like MKMonarch, WTCdemolitions and 911allcausticcamera) aware of this vid. The images are pretty damning, I haven't the ripping apart of the outer steel structure any better and more graphic than this.
Sandberg1972 5 months ago
@Sandberg1972 It's from FOIA: 27, it's in the video description.
First time I saw It was here /watch?v=ma13I76Sb10
Check out his channel many many great videos... user Xenomorph911WTC
DrVresig 5 months ago
@DrVresig Yes I know about Nate aka Xenomorph911TC, He was the first user (I know about) that started collecting all available vids about all 3 collapses. That was many years ago now, and he's kept at it. But these other 3 users I wrote about, one of them had his account closed (WTCdemolitions), the other 2 are still in business, so maybe I'll give them a hint.
Thanx for the work u've been putting up here, keep it going.
Cheers!
Sandberg1972 5 months ago
F*** who was behind this muslim or not (and i am muslim)!
MrBillets 5 months ago
The 110 storey tower, collapsed in 9 seconds. NINE SECONDS.
ThatKid9964 5 months ago
Oh man, that looks shit scary. If you were on the bottom floor, sure you could run outside, but the risk of getting hit by large debris and getting knocked out and possibly killed would of been just frightening. I'm sure people would of took that risk, it would of been a tiny bit better then actually being in the building.
Bless every, single soul of the victims, the families, the friends and everyone affected that day. <3
ThatKid9964 5 months ago
That building was Falling(Exploding) more Smoothly then Dominos...
ManOfOZ2011 5 months ago
@ManOfOZ2011 The rate of destruction was almost in freefall, about 10 floors per second
lNFERNO 5 months ago
The building just spitting out steel support beams like throwing a bucket of tooth picks. That is crazy. I never saw this video. God Bless any one who was inside. I'm sure it was horrific.
SacredSocietyAP 5 months ago
Should not even bother to waste my time, but I think people in the bleeping bulidings would notice demo crews working in them placing explosives. Just saying.
It's simple. The plane hits, fire starts melts floor trusses. Once the top of the tower starts to move it's not stopping.
Zoomer30 5 months ago
@Zoomer30 It was a lot of renovation going on in the towers, in matter of fact the biggest elevator modernization in the world.
But don't put your energy on "how, who & why". That's what a new investigation is for, instead concentrate on things we do know.
/watch?v=32-Ctx7MhKY
DrVresig 5 months ago