This isn't new, Alex Jones preached this. Jeff King, the man you are about to see is an MIT engineer. His opinions are totally logical. Pay special attention to the power outages the week before all of this happened.

Alex Jones, in one of his videos says that Bush's cousin was in charge of the security detail in the WTC. Does it add up? Was this done to make us go to war?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&q=mit&hl=en


__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

Alex Jones Videos:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=Alex+jones&hl=en (one the london bombings)



Kennedy Assasination: This video is very insightful.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4315024059102108031&q=Alex+jones&hl=en

If you have a weak stomach don't watch this. They do show Kennedy's execution.

There is evidence, none of this is a hoax.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=thermite+wtc&hl=en

Very informative movie, NEW MOVIE.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5309544113770321499&q=alex+jones+11&hl=en

More videos will be posted. *

nobody cares, its a bunch of BS... and a waste of time. go away.

Interesting. One of these days voices will be heard in the mainstream about this act. To think that our own leaders would do such a thing. What will the American people do when they find out that this was done to them buy there own people? Civil War? Viva La Revolution!!!

nobody cares, its a bunch of BS... and a waste of time. go away.

No, you don't care. A waste of your time. You go away as you're not interested in the subject!

What's up with all the fake scientist on this forum who looked at the events of 9/11 and knew that something just wasn't right about the whole damn thing? First time in history buildings collapsed from fire. Saw the way Building 7 fell.

Then they heard the "official story" and all that knowledge jump right out there fake scientist brains.

The focus on the buildings falling is a non-starter. The National Institute of Science and Technology did as thorough a study of this event as is possible (from a scientific point of view).

The impact of the airplane knocked off the fire insulation on the steel structure, which subsequently sagged from the heat, leading to the collapse. Actually, the buildings held up very well, all things considered.

I'm willing to entertain the notion of a conspiracy elsewhere, such as with Bush's response to the attack, the lack of a NORAD fighter shooting down the planes, Bush's need for a "new Pearl Harbor", ect..

Interesting. One of these days voices will be heard in the mainstream about this act. To think that our own leaders would do such a thing. What will the American people do when they find out that this was done to them buy there own people? Civil War? Viva La Revolution!!!

Thats not what I'm getting at. Revolutions kill people. We need this president banished!


The impact of the airplane knocked off the fire insulation on the steel structure, which subsequently sagged from the heat, leading to the collapse. Actually, the buildings held up very well, all things considered.




I don't believe that. I saw explosions from the video. I feel an impending uncovering is coming up.

I guess I have to break it down for you guys:

1. the "squibs" are just jests of dust/smoke/debris. they could have been caused by, I don't know, a collapsing building.
2. meaningful explanation:spidergoat covered it.
3. so debris was "recycled," so?
4. black smoke does not really mean anything, its not like all of the fire must burn at the same temperature.
5. it does not stand to reason that the center supports should have withstood the collapse.
6. people disagree as to the cause of the collapse. so?
7. concrete protected from becoming dust by carpet? I don't think so.
8. beams had to telescope? no, there was plenty of room for them to collapse. this statement does not even follow from logic.
9. steel does not have to be superheated to fail. moreover, there was plenty of heat being produced. where do you think all of the energy went when the building's collapsed? friction->heat
10. materials don't have to break in a short period of time. once the "stresses redistributed" steel can still gradually fail.
11. things that look and sound like explosions can be caused by many things, not just pre-set explosives.
12. drills do not mean people were planning stuff. drills happen all of the time.

not one credible argument in the bunch. moreover, he is an electrical engineering major. he is in no way an expert on building collapse.

he is in to way an expert on building collapse.


I take it you are?

Ah, more barking moon-bat conspiracy theorists.
At least I know that the tinfoil hat market is going to be doing well this year.

I take it you are?

Jeff King studied Physics at MIT. Has practical experience. Watch the other video from another highly acclaimed engineer and his take.

This is the interview: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2842384983834100001&q=alex+jones&hl=en

Another video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=steven+jones&hl=en

Check out google video, do your own research, if you care!

we have rehashed this subject numerous times and i am convinced that wtc 1 and 2 were brought down by the impact of planes in combination with fires.
i am also convinced that a airplane impacted the pentagon.

the only real mystery is the collapse of building 7.
i am reasonably positive that it too has an explaination that fits the facts of 9/11

we have rehashed this subject numerous times and i am convinced that wtc 1 and 2 were brought down by the impact of planes in combination with fires.
i am also convinced that a airplane impacted the pentagon.

the only real mystery is the collapse of building 7.
i am reasonably positive that it too has an explaination that fits the facts of 9/11

I don't want to state my opinion. I came across this information. I want to expose it in this forum to get opinions. I like information backed up by information, unbiased scientific information. NISIC or w.e. its called is not biased when considering the implication of the white house in this crime (if there ever was one). I'm simply examining the facts. I do HOWEVER believe we must ask more questions. Not enough has been revealed to us, or to the lost ones on 911. This is what I'm implying here.

Lets be true citizens of the world. And examine the information at hand. If you have verifiable information to share, to refute what I have said or anything else I posted above, make it known. Thanks.

I don't believe that. I saw explosions from the video. I feel an impending uncovering is coming up.

I don't blame you for thinking that. If you watch with that preconcieved notion in your mind, that is what you might see. However, I have seen videos of demolitions, and I notice something completely different. Squibs give off flashes of light, white smoke and shockwaves of sound. I see nothing like that on the Trade Center videos, only puffs of grey smoke that could come out of a window breaking.

I'm still wondering why Bush just sat there in a third grade classroom and did nothing. That seems to be the real issue here.

I take it you are?
just because you have taken physics classes at mit does not meant shit. and yes, I am an electrical engineering major, and I have taken all of the general engineering stuff (like materials, statics, solid mechanic, physics 1,2, and an elective physics). so I am approximately as qualified as this guy, and I would not say I understand enough about to make any such claims. however, I seem to know more about it than that guy. for example, I know material can pass its elastic limit and not break for some time still, which he apparently does not know.

Lets be true citizens of the world. And examine the information at hand. If you have verifiable information to share, to refute what I have said or anything else I posted above, make it known. Thanks.
i suppose you are saying that bombs were planted in wtc 1 and 2 and that is what brought them down.
maybe you can answer these two questions
1. why did the collapse initiate at the impact site and the buildings collapsed from the top down?
2. why wasn't any unexploded bomb debris found in the wreckage?

If the buildings collapsed as a result of a bomb, why go to the effort of arranging to crash an airplane into it? Terrorists set off bombs, like the first Trade Center bombing.

I don't blame you for thinking that. If you watch with that preconcieved notion in your mind, that is what you might see. However, I have seen videos of demolitions, and I notice something completely different. Squibs give off flashes of light, white smoke and shockwaves of sound. I see nothing like that on the Trade Center videos, only puffs of grey smoke that could come out of a window breaking.

I'm still wondering why Bush just sat there in a third grade classroom and did nothing. That seems to be the real issue here.

I did she flashes. Watch the videos again. I might have seen reflections from the sun. But they were systematic and were followed by bursts from the glass.

If the buildings collapsed as a result of a bomb, why go to the effort of arranging to crash an airplane into it? Terrorists set off bombs, like the first Trade Center bombing.

Again, don't take offense. I'm just examining the situation. It might be because the aggressors wanted to identify this HORRIFIC act with the terrorists who they wanted to attack. They knew the terrorists flying into the building would not bring down the symbol of democracy. But they knew that the avrg Joe, who is impressionable and ignorant to other people's opinions, would think that the airplanes could in fact bring this building down. Hence the planes.

i suppose you are saying that bombs were planted in wtc 1 and 2 and that is what brought them down.
maybe you can answer these two questions
1. why did the collapse initiate at the impact site and the buildings collapsed from the top down?
2. why wasn't any unexploded bomb debris found in the wreckage?
1. They pre arranged the explosives or w.e. it was to make you think so, by insturcting those unfortunate people to fly into those specific areas. Also remember the proximity of these buildings to the NYSE and the SEC. The people behind this didn't want to completely wreck the downtown area to stop the economy. They just wanted to veer it to a certain course. Again, all my opinion.
2.The wreckage was confiscated. The video I posted above proves that. Only 100 fragments were taken if I remember correctly, from 2 skyscrapers.

I did see flashes. Watch the videos again. I might have seen reflections from the sun. But they were systematic and were followed by bursts from the glass.

flashes or not, those "squibs" seem perfectly normal. make a smore and smash it, it will do the same thing.

But they knew that the avrg Joe, who is impressionable and ignorant to other people's opinions, would think that the airplanes could in fact bring this building down. Hence the planes.
there has been nothing shown that indicates that an airplane moving at high speeds filled with jet fuel could not bring down the building.

1. They pre arranged the explosives or w.e. it was to make you think so, by insturcting those unfortunate people to fly into those specific areas. Also remember the proximity of these buildings to the NYSE and the SEC. The people behind this didn't want to completely wreck the downtown area to stop the economy. They just wanted to veer it to a certain course. Again, all my opinion.
first, they probably did more damage to our economy by hitting the trade centers than if they flew into the NYSE. second, it would be incredibly difficult for them to fly into the exact right place. thirdly, how come they didn't destroy the explosives with the jet fuel/impact? fourth, how would they be able to tell how it would effect our economy? to they have a fortune teller?

edit: this is pointless speculation. from a scientific standpoint, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Another video I saw which is interesting. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&q=genre%3Adocumentary&hl=en

"first, they probably did more damage to our economy by hitting the trade centers than if they flew into the NYSE."
Look back I never doubted that. The NYSE is only half of it. Look at the video above, the graph. Meriyll Lynch, IRS. Just watch the video when you have time.

"second, it would be incredibly difficult for them to fly into the exact right place."The top isn't exactly an "exact place" its an area.

"thirdly, how come they didn't destroy the explosives with the jet fuel/impact?"

Because the building is designed to stave off the impact and has the support of strong design. They needed the excuse of immense heat to tick away in order to carry out the opperation.

"fourth, how would they be able to tell how it would effect our economy? to they have a fortune teller?"
Depends who you classify as "they". If you believe the terrorists did it, then well Osama owned a bank, banks aren't run by fortune tellers but by financiers, or people with financiers on the payroll.

edit: this is pointless speculation. from a scientific standpoint, you should be ashamed of yourself."

I'm just looking at this from a different prespective.

One thing no one seems to realize: Steel beams bending and snapping would make HUGE noise. Do you realize how much energy it takes to snap a steel beam in half? It would sound, quite litterally, like an explosion. The "boom boom boom boom boom" would be each floor's beams snapping.

One thing no one seems to realize: Steel beams bending and snapping would make HUGE noise. Do you realize how much energy it takes to snap a steel beam in half? It would sound, quite litterally, like an explosion. The "boom boom boom boom boom" would be each floor's beams snapping.

Watch the video I posted on the latest post for proof.

Also listen to this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&q=genre%3Adocumentary&hl=en

The radio interview at the end of this clip, implies that the maintanence workers were the installers of the explosive materials.

"exact place" its an area.
you know that how? you (or wherever you get your info) are just making up things to fit your argument. meanwhile, back in reality, there is no proof for any of it.

Because the building is designed to stave off the impact and has the support of strong design. They needed the excuse of immense heat to tick away in order to carry out the opperation.
that says nothing of how the explosives survived the intense heat and impact.

Depends who you classify as "they". If you believe the terrorists did it, then well Osama owned a bank, banks aren't run by fortune tellers but by financiers, or people with financiers on the payroll.
anyone. there is no way you can "steer" the economy in a direction. there would be no way to know what the effect would be without employing hundreds of people. ever stop to think that some of those people would have come forward?

like I said, you and your sources are just making up "what if" statements and trying to sell them as a solid theory. show me evidence and I will listen.

1. They pre arranged the explosives or w.e. it was to make you think so, by insturcting those unfortunate people to fly into those specific areas. Also remember the proximity of these buildings to the NYSE and the SEC. The people behind this didn't want to completely wreck the downtown area to stop the economy. They just wanted to veer it to a certain course. Again, all my opinion.
this doesn't explain why the buildings fell from the top down.
if you watch controlled demolitions of buildings you will notice a difference in the way they fall compared to wtc 1 and 2.
2.The wreckage was confiscated. The video I posted above proves that. Only 100 fragments were taken if I remember correctly, from 2 skyscrapers.
there were 100's of people crawling over the wreckage, a number of them were police. not one thought to bring a bomb sniffing dog with them?

"anyone. there is no way you can "steer" the economy in a direction. there would be no way to know what the effect would be without employing hundreds of people. ever stop to think that some of those people would have come forward?"

I'm sure they are a very closely knit group. Closely monitored by eachother. If one talks they will execute them. I'm sure. Some might succeed.

Its not the economy only, its the security of Ameircans. War on terror.

All ready at the 3 minute mark, BusinessWiz, I've found a problem:

When buildings collapse and have damage on one side, it isn't like a tree where they tip over gradually. The structures snap and it falls -down-. It would take a huge building, with only the top portion, to tumble over.

I've done tests in computer programmes with real-life physics. I've even weighted the building EXTREMELY to one side. And in every instance? The building falls down -straight-.

Well, when MIT, Princeton, Harvard, and NASA all run simulations and find, surprisingly, that a pancake top to bottom collapse like the one in WTC 1 and 2 is the ONLY way a building that size can collapse, I tend to listen.

I think the idea that the WTC's were bombed is silly. Tens of thousands of people worked there every day, there is no way to rig it for demolition without people knowing. In fact, one of the nation's top terrorism experts was in charge of security there- an honorable and principled person who tried and failed to get Bush to pay attention to the terrorism problem. Demolishing the building with explosives would have been impossible.

A better question is what really happened to Flight 93? Much less is known about that. I understand that virtually no wreckage was found.

I think the idea that the WTC's were bombed is silly. Tens of thousands of people worked there every day, there is no way to rig it for demolition without people knowing. In fact, one of the nation's top terrorism experts was in charge of security there- an honorable and principled person who tried and failed to get Bush to pay attention to the terrorism problem. Demolishing the building with explosives would have been impossible.

A better question is what really happened to Flight 93? Much less is known about that. I understand that virtually no wreckage was found.

They had a way to get the explosives in there. Watch the video above. There was a "suspicous" blackout. An anticipated black out in fact, where the corporations up there knew in advance.

I thought they went through the flight 93 wreckage! Wow this is really creepy and 5 years later.

Prince_James, TW Scott, you have it right on the money, when you cut a tree to fall in logging you want the tree to fall in a certain spot, so to do that you cut a notch on the side of the tree in the direction you want it to fall, then you go to the opposite side and cut the tree, and give it a little push to help it along, the problem that the conspirators do not want to recognize is that the notch was cut but nothing was cut on the other side, and there was nothing to change the inertia of the building, like the push given a tree, even a tree that isn't given a push when cut through has a tendency to slip off the stump and then pitch a direction that it will fall which then becomes a very dangerous situation for the logger, the other thing is that the construction of the building was around a core so when the core support finally loss strength the outer shell of the building would make the final collapse go straight down, pancake, Newton,s Laws of motion cover this quite well, after the crash's the buildings didn't move in any of a side direction, when enough strength was lost at the core, and no energy or force was exerted sideways, the inertia of the top of the building would have prevented it from moving side was, so the only direction that it could go was in the direction of gravity straight down, all in accordance with Newton's Law's of Motion, is this layman's explanation fairly correct? Thank you.

They had a way to get the explosives in there. Watch the video above. There was a "suspicous" blackout. An anticipated black out in fact, where the corporations up there knew in advance.

I thought they went through the flight 93 wreckage! Wow this is really creepy and 5 years later.
so, you can't explain why the buildings fell from the top down, unlike other controlled demolitions, and you can't explain why unexploded bomb debris wasn't found in the wreckage, but you are convinced explosives brought down wtc 1 and 2.
is the above correct?

For every argument that someone besides pissed off muslims blew up the WTC there is a counter argument. Believe what you want.

For every argument that someone besides pissed off muslims blew up the WTC there is a counter argument. Believe what you want.
be quiet moron.

one should believe what the science tells them until better science can be done. one should not just throw their beliefs at any idiot with a hypothesis. do tests, do simulations, get input from real experts (many of them), and refine the model until you have a good idea of what went on.

so, you can't explain why the buildings fell from the top down, unlike other controlled demolitions, and you can't explain why unexploded bomb debris wasn't found in the wreckage, but you are convinced explosives brought down wtc 1 and 2.
is the above correct?

I won't be convinced until I see proof. Hardcore proof.

I don't know if there were unexploded bomb debris.

I do believe that Bush's gradfather was the owner of Union Bank which supported the Nazis, or Hitler, like IBM. And Hitler used the same fear concept to take power, with the Reichstag and the Jews. Just watch the movie about the assasination of Kennedy I posted it in this forum. Don't watch it all straight up. Take breaks, you will want to watch it fully in one shot though. Its all there, explained concretely. Then do your researching.

I won't be convinced until I see proof. Hardcore proof.
proof? proof of what?
I don't know if there were unexploded bomb debris.

have you heard any reports of dogs detecting any bomb debris in the wreckage?

proof? proof of what?
Proof of explosives, proof of there being no explosives, proof in general. There are none because there is something to hide. Proof which is so substantial as to allow 50% or more to believe it. The figure now, is somewhere at 40% who believe that the gov't is hiding something about 9/11. This poll was a reliable verifiable poll. I don't know how it's called but it was quoted in CNN. The proof again is the videos above. If you want to watch more, go to google video or YouTube and check it out.


have you heard any reports of dogs detecting any bomb debris in the wreckage?

I have not heard those reports. But the dogs would need to be trained to detect a variety of bomb materials, such as thermite.




Note: To future posters, don't post anything without watching the videos at full length. I don't like to have to waste time repeating or explaining what I know from these sources. Also read the preceding posts before posting. Thank you for understanding.

Proof of explosives, proof of there being no explosives, proof in general.
the NIST report for one.
the fact that the buildings fell from the top down for another.
the fact that no trace of bomb debris was found in the wreckage for a third.
you STILL haven't explained the second fact.
There are none because there is something to hide.
how about answering my questions?
Note: To future posters, don't post anything without watching the videos at full length. I don't like to have to waste time repeating or explaining what I know from these sources. Also read the preceding posts before posting. Thank you for understanding.
why don't you read the NIST report and use some common sense?

The focus on the buildings falling is a non-starter. The National Institute of Science and Technology did as thorough a study of this event as is possible (from a scientific point of view).
So can you tell us what NIST had to say about the collapse of building 7?

Apparently there were excercises\drills on 11/9/01 that were very similar to the actual events this is given as a resaon for the poor response to the hijackings as opposed to the reasonably quick response to the Payne Stewart incident. Wether or not that is true I do not know yet a similar claim is made about the London authorities running excercises that involved the simultaneous bombings of tube stations as it actually occured. If the claims about these excercises is true regardless of who you believe is responsible either way it makes it a very bleak world we live in...

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
Another interesting argument against the "alex jones" rubbish.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
Another interesting argument against the "alex jones" rubbish.

This is about Loose change not Alex Jones.

Scroll to the bottom, you will see who sponsored this site. The Free Masons. Read more about them, you will be surprised about what you find. They have very high connections in gov't, sure Bush is one of them.

Plus I don't think that the Kid would mix fiction with such a horrid event.

I'm not talking about Loose Change. I didn't like it either. It was weak, more hoaxy looking, with the monotone voice, yea creepy. I'm talking about Alex Jones and the other vids I posted.

You know that the conspiratorial nut are right the building was brought down in a controlled explosion, Bin Laden is a engineer, and he planed the strike and were to hit the buildings, and we saw the results, it was a slow motion implosion of the building, and the explosives used were the high speed aircraft, and the heat of the fire afterwards, you couldn't hit the building at the bottom which is how a controlled demolition of a building is done for demolition, because of the other skyscrapers in and around the towers, so you hit them higher and let Newton Laws of motion take effect, and let gravity do the work, now for all you theorist out there show me how Newton's laws don't apply to the towers above the strike points? and then you may have a good conspiracy theory, remember after the aircraft strikes the only forces applied to the building were heat and gravity, there was no side pressure to the top of the building to give them any directional motion, so the only direction that they would have to move was in the direction of gravity the last force left to act on the buildings.

the NIST report for one.
the fact that the buildings fell from the top down for another.
the fact that no trace of bomb debris was found in the wreckage for a third.
you STILL haven't explained the second fact.

how about answering my questions?

why don't you read the NIST report and use some common sense?

I'm not an expert on this. I'm just showcasing this issue because I don't think there is enough info avail to the public on this event.

NIST is just another acronymn that might be in on the same conspiracy. That's all I'm suggesting or theorizing about. All great discoveries were based in part on theory. I'm not trying to discover something, I'm trying to throw this around and see where it leads. The building might have fallen from top down right, from the top of the white house all the way to the NIST. I just don't think the evidence or lack there of adds up. I'm not looking to argue, I'm looking to discuss. I'm not going to answer questions, I'm not an all knowing mesiah and neither are you. I'm a little person trying to conceptualize big things. This is all.

As for the bomb debris, they might have melted along with the molten steel or w.e. it was. Which is again shown in the videos.

Have you seen the videos I posted? Did you review them carefully.

About the videos, I wish their creators wouldn't of put music on while the movie is being shown. It makes it seem like a hoax, like they are trying to convince people. But humans get bored very quickly. Music keeps them involved. That's why every program you see has a tune. That's interesting. I should look into that.

Comments?

Businesswiz, you still have to get around Newton's Laws, and you can have theories all you want, but are they logical, again Newton's Laws of Motion, and to destroy all bomb evidence you would need thousands of tons of molten steel, and even at that show me the evidence of large amounts of molten metal, the fires created didn't have the temperatures to crate molten steel in large amounts, but they would have been capable of heating the steel to the point were it lost tensile strength, to get it molten and to keep it molten a lot more energy would be need, and that would have been hot enough to consume large amounts of the building wreckage, and you would have had visible fires raging all throughout the wreckage.

You know that the conspiratorial nut are right the building was brought down in a controlled explosion, Bin Laden is a engineer, and he planed the strike and were to hit the buildings, and we saw the results, it was a slow motion implosion of the building, and the explosives used were the high speed aircraft, and the heat of the fire afterwards, you couldn't hit the building at the bottom which is how a controlled demolition of a building is done for demolition, because of the other skyscrapers in and around the towers, so you hit them higher and let Newton Laws of motion take effect, and let gravity do the work, now for all you theorist out there show me how Newton's laws don't apply to the towers above the strike points? and then you may have a good conspiracy theory, remember after the aircraft strikes the only forces applied to the building were heat and gravity, there was no side pressure to the top of the building to give them any directional motion, so the only direction that they would have to move was in the direction of gravity the last force left to act on the buildings.

Did you watch the above video posts? The WTC were designed to withstand such blows. There were explosions heard below the building as well. I think there was more audio on such accusations by the firefighters at the scene, but the 911 commission or something of that sort kept the tapes from that day for a year or some long time frame. I wonder what they did to those tapes. Maybe mod them to fit their story. Again, I'm not an expert. I'm just suggesting what might have happened. I merely watched the videos and used MY logic. I may be wrong, no one is absolutely right, EVER. So look at these vids for yourself, and figure it out. COMMENT. Thank you.

Businesswiz, you still have to get around Newton's Laws, and you can have theories all you want, but are they logical, again Newton's Laws of Motion, and to destroy all bomb evidence you would need thousands of tons of molten steel, and even at that show me the evidence of large amounts of molten metal, the fires created didn't have the temperatures to crate molten steel in large amounts, but they would have been capable of heating the steel to the point were it lost tensile strength, to get it molten and to keep it molten a lot more energy would be need, and that would have been hot enough to consume large amounts of the building wreckage, and you would have had visible fires raging all throughout the wreckage.

One of the videos affirms that thought you have. THEIR video proves there was a vast amount of molten metal at the bottom of the site for yards, deep below. That might affirm the claim of there being an explosion at the bottom of the building, or a reaction with large, easy to move, cheap Thermite. If the Thermite wasn't used then w.e. someother explosion. But I like how CIA and FBI were at the scene just after 911 for months not allowing anyone to enter the site. This was in papers and in the vid.

Have you watched the videos?

As for Newton, the idea is explained in Loose Change. That's the only interesting part of that movie.

http://www.infowars.com/ Check the articles out. I like the fact how its all backed up by proof.

.Businesswiz, no they were not, they were designed to with stand earth quakes, and the building did with stand the blow, it was the fires afterward the caused the problems, to lose tensile strength you do not need to make the steel molten, you just need to get it to a dull red and the structural strengths will be gone, and the building was constructed around a central core, and that is were the hottest of the fires would have been, what was left of the outer walls of the structure would have lent stability to the core only until the steel in the core lost it's structural strength, and then gravity would have been the final force acting on the building, there are no other forces that you or any other's can show that would be acting on the upper part of the towers to make them fall any direction but straight down in a pancake, Newton's Law's of Motion, physics you still haven't gotten around those

let me ask you something Businesswiz, when 500 000 tons (1 millions lb or 453 592 370 kg) falls from an average height of 684ft (200m), where does that energy go? we are talking 889 041 045 200 joules (approximate napkin calculation) of energy being released in a few seconds. you don't think that all of that energy being turned primarily into heat could get hot enough to melt steel?

we are talking hundreds of billions of watts here. have you ever touched a 60W light bulb that has been on for a while? multiply that by 10 billion, and you are on the right order of magnitude.

.Businesswiz, no they were not, they were designed to with stand earth quakes, and the building did with stand the blow, it was the fires afterward the caused the problems, to lose tensile strength you do not need to make the steel molten, you just need to get it to a dull red and the structural strengths will be gone, and the building was constructed around a central core, and that is were the hottest of the fires would have been, what was left of the outer walls of the structure would have lent stability to the core only until the steel in the core lost it's structural strength, and then gravity would have been the final force acting on the building, there are no other forces that you or any other's can show that would be acting on the upper part of the towers to make them fall any direction but straight down in a pancake, Newton's Law's of Motion, physics you still haven't gotten around those

Have you watched the videos? One of the videos proves that they were designed for planes hitting them. And one of the CHEIF ARCHITECTS AS WELL AS CHIEF ENGINEERS WERE SHOCKED. And admitted they were designed for airplanes the size of the ones that hit WTC. A B-42 bomber hit the Emire State Building in the 30's I believe. It burned for a while, but it remained in tact. The WTC are buildings with modern technologies and were built in the 1970's I believe. The bomber was much larger and carried much more fuel, than the commercial planes. Don't take my word for it, research. And please Buffalo Roam, watch the videos before you comment. I'm sure you understand why, I've posted it before. You even quoted that statement before.

I'm not going to answer questions, I'm not an all knowing mesiah and neither are you.

Comments?
yes, i have a few comments.
what, other than explosives, can explode in a high rise fire such as wtc 1,2?
do you know anything about how the towers were constructed?

oops i forgot you aren't answering any questions, you're here just to make your veiw known and to hell with everyone elses.

have fun.

edit
you read something somewhere and swallow it hook line and sinker.
and lest you think i'm biased i got an email today from reopen 911 asking me for donations. did you get one?
about your videos, i've watched every video made of 911 to name a few, in plane sight, inside 911, what we saw, 7 days in september, loose change (all 3 parts), the power of nightmares . . .etc, etc. i am willing to bet you haven't heard of some of them and i wasn't done listing.

the first thing a scientist does when faced with a theory is say "how can i prove this wrong"

Businesswiz

One of the videos affirms that thought you have. THEIR video proves there was a vast amount of molten metal at the bottom of the site for yards, deep below.

No were are there video's that show yards deep molten steel at the bottom of the towers, have you even look at the site, were the collapse took place, if there were yard's deep of molten steel, it would have had to covered a area of acres, and would have cooled into a solid mass, and would have been imposable to remove, the base of the building on tower one was something like 4 acres in size, you have any idea of how big a chunk of yards deep steel would be? the other thing is the physics of have to generate that much heat to liquefy that much metal would have destroyed the whole structure and left nothing but ash, the ignition temperature of concrete is still much lower than steel, so no matter how you look at it physics and motion are not on your side of the equation.

let me ask you something Businesswiz, when 500 000 tons (1 millions lb or 453 592 370 kg) falls from an average height of 684ft (200m), where does that energy go? we are talking 889 041 045 200 joules (approximate napkin calculation) of energy being released in a few seconds. you don't think that all of that energy being turned primarily into heat could get hot enough to melt steel?

we are talking hundreds of billions of watts here. have you ever touched a 60W light bulb that has been on for a while? multiply that by 10 billion, and you are on the right order of magnitude.

To all of your responses about the steel. I feel a little anxiety from you guys here. You're missing my point. I'm not imposing anything on you. All I'm doing is answering your questions with what I saw in the movies. So if you're anxious, direct it at Alex Jones and the rest, not me. I'm merely asking what you guys think. About the steel: I saw a movie with an acclaimed scientist, worked for FEMA, teaches, a learned man. So he showed satillite info-red photos and the heat was immense thousands of degrees in the foot prints of the WTC's (thats inclusive of WTC 7 which is suspicious to that extent I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY, BECAUSE THAT WAS BEYOND ANY DOUBT A PLANNED DEMOLITION, SINCE IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE OWNER OF THE BUILDINGS, HE "ORDERED THEM TO TAKE IT DOWN"). So this is where I get my info from.

About that comment: how long did it take them to take down WTC 7? Wasn't it on the same day that the 2 WTC were hit? That's pretty quick and pretty scary. The guy who owned the buildings, man he got billions from the insurance money. He wouldn't mind giving the gov't access to the buildings in those strange black outs. Just one call from the building's office will do.

And the "yards of molten" I quoted was not mine it was the acclaimed engineer, or scientist, or who ever he was.
yes, i have a few comments.
what, other than explosives, can explode in a high rise fire such as wtc 1,2?
do you know anything about how the towers were constructed?

oops i forgot you aren't answering any questions, you're here just to make your veiw known and to hell with everyone elses.

have fun.

edit
you read something somewhere and swallow it hook line and sinker.
and lest you think i'm biased i got an email today from reopen 911 asking me for donations. did you get one?
about your videos, i've watched every video made of 911 to name a few, in plane sight, inside 911, what we saw, 7 days in september, loose change (all 3 parts), the power of nightmares . . .etc, etc. i am willing to bet you haven't heard of some of them and i wasn't done listing.

the first thing a scientist does when faced with a theory is say "how can i prove this wrong"

Businesswiz

Have you watched the Alex Jones vids I posted?


No were are there video's that show yards deep molten steel at the bottom of the towers, have you even look at the site, were the collapse took place, if there were yard's deep of molten steel, it would have had to covered a area of acres, and would have cooled into a solid mass, and would have been imposable to remove, the base of the building on tower one was something like 4 acres in size, you have any idea of how big a chunk of yards deep steel would be? the other thing is the physics of have to generate that much heat to liquefy that much metal would have destroyed the whole structure and left nothing but ash, the ignition temperature of concrete is still much lower than steel, so no matter how you look at it physics and motion are not on your side of the equation.

Businesswiz, we are thinking, and we are using the laws of motion and physics, and thermal dynamics, and for all the theory's of conspiracy by the government, none can get around the laws of motion, physics, and thermal dynamics, the amount of energy to create and maintain large amounts of molten steel would not be possible at the site of the building collapse's and there is no way that, that much molten steel once it cooled could be removed with out someone noticing, it's the conspiracy nuts that need to think and take notice of the laws of science, engineering, motion, thermal dynamics, as those cannot be gotten around.

To all of your responses about the steel. I feel a little anxiety from you guys here. You're missing my point. I'm not imposing anything on you. All I'm doing is answering your questions with what I saw in the movies. So if you're anxious, direct it at Alex Jones and the rest, not me. I'm merely asking what you guys think. About the steel: I saw a movie with an acclaimed scientist, worked for FEMA, teaches, a learned man. So he showed satillite info-red photos and the heat was immense thousands of degrees in the foot prints of the WTC's (thats inclusive of WTC 7 which is suspicious to that extent I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY, BECAUSE THAT WAS BEYOND ANY DOUBT A PLANNED DEMOLITION, SINCE IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE OWNER OF THE BUILDINGS, HE "ORDERED THEM TO TAKE IT DOWN"). So this is where I get my info from.
did you even read my comment? I pointed out that such temperatures could be created with just the collapse of a building. moreover, I highly doubt termite could do what you claim.

and its infrared not "info-red"

I won't be convinced until I see proof. Hardcore proof.

Uh-huh, and internet videos are your versions of hardcore proof? Too funny.

So can you tell us what NIST had to say about the collapse of building 7?

Apparently there were excercises\drills on 11/9/01 that were very similar to the actual events this is given as a resaon for the poor response to the hijackings as opposed to the reasonably quick response to the Payne Stewart incident. Wether or not that is true I do not know yet a similar claim is made about the London authorities running excercises that involved the simultaneous bombings of tube stations as it actually occured. If the claims about these excercises is true regardless of who you believe is responsible either way it makes it a very bleak world we live in...

I'm not sure exactly why running an excercise on that day makes it a bleak world, but it is a weird coincidence.

The NIST report doesn't address the government response, only the question of why the buildings fell. Simulations were run of the impact of such an airplane on the structure. They found that the impact did do alot of damage inside the building, mostly from the engines. The fireproofing material was an inexpensive kind not resistant to impact. Without the fireproofing material on the steel, it was volnerable to fire, and the fire was severe enough to make people jump to their deaths instead of withstand that heat. In the end, the steel floors sagged, placing too much stress on the outer support structure already carrying extra weight due to the large hole in the side of the building, and then it snapped.

Uh-huh, and internet videos are your versions of hardcore proof? Too funny.

No where did I state that. They are not hard proof but they do get the mind thinking.

and its infrared not "info-red"

Thanks

Explosions don't melt steel, they either vaporize it, or break it due to the shock wave.

I read one firsthand account that describes a piece of red-hot steel. Now that seems to have been elaborated into "yards of molten steel".

I'm not sure exactly why running an excercise on that day makes it a bleak world, but it is a weird coincidence.

The NIST report doesn't address the government response, only the question of why the buildings fell. Simulations were run of the impact of such an airplane on the structure. They found that the impact did do alot of damage inside the building, mostly from the engines. The fireproofing material was an inexpensive kind not resistant to impact. Without the fireproofing material on the steel, it was volnerable to fire, and the fire was severe enough to make people jump to their deaths instead of withstand that heat. In the end, the steel floors sagged, placing too much stress on the outer support structure already carrying extra weight due to the large hole in the side of the building, and then it snapped.

Does this have any correlation to the Empire State Building and how a B-52 bomber flew into it, or did The ESB have a different structure?

Also what's your take on the WTC 7.

Thank you for your non biased comment, Spidergoat.

This is about Loose change not Alex Jones
I'm talking about Alex Jones
Huh? Anyway, the freemason ads are there because the article talks about the freemasons. text analysers put the ads there.

What do you have to say about the millions of people required for the conspiracy then?

Businesswiz, we are thinking, and we are using the laws of motion and physics, and thermal dynamics, and for all the theory's of conspiracy by the government, none can get around the laws of motion, physics, and thermal dynamics, the amount of energy to create and maintain large amounts of molten steel would not be possible at the site of the building collapse's and there is no way that, that much molten steel once it cooled could be removed with out someone noticing, it's the conspiracy nuts that need to think and take notice of the laws of science, engineering, motion, thermal dynamics, as those cannot be gotten around.

What if it wasn't removed? And its still underneath the WTC memorial? Is that possible? I don't know, where there some reports that something was unearthed? Thanks.

Huh? Anyway, the freemason ads are there because the article talks about the freemasons. text analysers put the ads there.

What do you have to say about the millions of people required for the conspiracy then?

How do you count a million?



*Hey guys, is there a Sciforums chat or something? This is too slow.

Explosions don't melt steel, they either vaporize it, or break it due to the shock wave.

I read one firsthand account that describes a piece of red-hot steel. Now that seems to have been elaborated into "yards of molten steel".

Have you seen how Thermite destroys the steel? It turns it into a lava like stream. I think its in one of the vids I posted. And one of the videos of the WTC show the same substance flowing out of one of the top floors right before it came down. Strange to me.

I would think dogs could sniff out thermite. especially if the building collapsed, thus scattering unburnt thermite. the thermite argument does not seem like a strong one.

Thermite as a possibility.

Very strange correlation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1837033714967622806&q=thermite&hl=en Thermite video.

WTC : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=thermite&hl=en

BYU professor speaks: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904&q=thermite+wtc&hl=en I think the guy starts to talk about it 13 min into it.

Watch the whole video. Interesting.

Have you seen how Thermite destroys the steel? It turns it into a lava like stream. I think its in one of the vids I posted. And one of the videos of the WTC show the same substance flowing out of one of the top floors right before it came down. Strange to me.

That theory is totally unneccessary to explain the collapse. The obvious cause of the airplane crash is plausable. Have you such faith in a steel structure? Those things sway in the wind. I could never understand how they stayed up so long.

No where did I state that. They are not hard proof but they do get the mind thinking.

But, I don't actually see any thinking on your part.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4260823951534797708&q=thermite+wtc&hl=en

Watch the video! Bush's cousin was the head of security for WTC.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=thermite+wtc&hl=en

Interesting new video, talks about the structual design and other things.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4260823951534797708&q=thermite+wtc&hl=en

Watch the video! Bush's cousin was the head of security for WTC.

That is easily refuted. The head of security for the WTC's was John O'Neill.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

:( That is easily refuted. The head of security for the WTC's was John O'Neill.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

Thanks. But the video didn't say he was head, but one of the "principles", if I remember correctly. Do you still think he would have had power? Thanks Spider for the reference.

Sorry about the "head" comment. I was wrong. But this is really amazing to me.

And he wasn't Bush's cousin he was his brother. And was the founders of Securacom a company which was in charge of the electronic systems in the WTC's and the Dallas airport, which btw were both involved in the "conspiracy theory".

Definetly watch the video I posted before.


I recently thought this up. Yea what if the government KNEW that the terrorists would attack. Yea they KNEW but didn't stop them, because they KNEW what it would mean for the WAR ON TERROR. They knew, heck if they go at it then we will have a reason to attack Iraq, to make a bunch of laws changing the constitution (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/...are_lies.ht m). They knew a little while before it would happen with the 21st century spying and intel they had. And so they rigged the WTC in preperation, knowing that it wouldn't fall without a push. Knowing that it wouldn't kill 1000s of more people in the building stuck. Just the idea of these buildings being brought down is eeiry to the world. The pentagon was just for effect. The tapes that would have shown the plane crashing into the pentagon were confiscated why? What national info do they have to protect, that wasn't shown in the news feeds after the fact?


Oh, and about the dogs at the trade center snifing out the Thermite: Yea, notice no one even considered thermite as being used in this catastrophe. And how do you know the dogs would have been trained to detect it. The physics professor, PHD, said the in the NIST report, no where in it was the mention to any degree of thermite with a possibility of it being used.

Does this have any correlation to the Empire State Building and how a B-52 bomber flew into it, or did The ESB have a different structure?

yes indeed the empire state building is of a different construction from wtc 1 and 2. very different. you really should do your homework before posting other peoples stuff.

Have you seen how Thermite destroys the steel? It turns it into a lava like stream. I think its in one of the vids I posted. Strange to me.
funny this "lava like stream of molten metal" wasn't observed on the day the towers fell.

funny this "lava like stream of molten metal" wasn't observed on the day the towers fell.

I posted a video check it out.

Maybe the news media didn't show it.

yes indeed the empire state building is of a different construction from wtc 1 and 2. very different. you really should do your homework before posting other peoples stuff.

But you can't deny the fact that the WTC was designed to withstand a blow from a commercial jet(the specifications of which were equivalent to the airplanes that hit the WTCs), the arhitects were quoted of saying so. The WTCs were also newer than the E.S.Building obviously.

Again, all this proves to me is you aren't watching the videos. Will it hurt to do so?

I posted a video check it out.
"what we saw" is a video made on the day the towers fell. it doesn't show any "lava like metal".
Maybe the news media didn't show it.
or maybe it just wasn't there.

But you can't deny the fact that the WTC was designed to withstand a blow from a commercial jet, the arhitects were quoted of saying so. The WTCs were also newer than the E.S.Building obviously.

Again, all this proves to me is you aren't watching the videos. Will it hurt to do so?
a 727 or 737 i believe.

"what we saw" is a video made on the day the towers fell. it doesn't show any "lava like metal".

or maybe it just wasn't there.

Then you just didn't see it I will post it here again. Sorry for the confusion.

Edit: Got to post # 63.

Then you just didn't see it I will post it here again. Sorry for the confusion.

Edit: Got to post # 63.
why don't you look up "what we saw" and watch it?
it was made as those events unfolded.

you do realize that you can do some incredible things with video editors right?

it's becoming obvious to me that you aren't interested at getting at the truth.
for example have you watched any controlled demolition videos and compared them to the twin towers?

about the towers withstanding a impact from a airplane, it was assumed that the airplane was lost and the impact was an accident. it wasn't assumed it would be full of fuel and rammed at top speed. have you even studied the construction of the towers yet? do you know how the floors were connected to the core columns? do you realize the exterior provided almost no support?

Originally Posted by Businesswiz
Does this have any correlation to the Empire State Building and how a B-52 bomber flew into it, or did The ESB have a different structure?

It wasn't a B-52 that flew into the Empire State Building it was a B-25 1/4 of the weight of a 767-223, and less than half the speed,

The Empire State Building Plane Crash - July 28,1945
Too late the pilot of the U.S. Army B-25 bomber with three men aboard, saw the Empire State Building loom up before his eyes. At 300 miles per hour, ...
http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm

why don't you look up "what we saw" and watch it?
it was made as those events unfolded.

you do realize that you can do some incredible things with video editors right?

it's becoming obvious to me that you aren't interested at getting at the truth.
for example have you watched any controlled demolition videos and compared them to the twin towers?

about the towers withstanding a impact from a airplane, it was assumed that the airplane was lost and the impact was an accident. it wasn't assumed it would be full of fuel and rammed at top speed. have you even studied the construction of the towers yet? do you know how the floors were connected to the core columns? do you realize the exterior provided almost no support?


I watched the video about the twin towers if you have the time watch it. Its in the first post (comment) Its labled as NEW I recently edited it to include it. Check it out.

About the editing of the camera. That might be a possibility. I don't disprove that. The thought believe it or not did cross my mind. Anther thought crossed my mind. Who is funding these movies, surely it takes money to put together. No matter, to me the evidence is profound whether you see it or not. I have seen enough, and heard enough.

Originally Posted by Businesswiz


It wasn't a B-52 that flew into the Empire State Building it was a B-25 1/4 of the weight of a 767-223, and less than half the speed,

The Empire State Building Plane Crash - July 28,1945
Too late the pilot of the U.S. Army B-25 bomber with three men aboard, saw the Empire State Building loom up before his eyes. At 300 miles per hour, ...
http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm
even if the impacts were identical there still wouldn't be any comparison.
the E.S.B and wtc 1,2 were entirely different constructions.

Originally Posted by Businesswiz


It wasn't a B-52 that flew into the Empire State Building it was a B-25 1/4 of the weight of a 767-223, and less than half the speed,

The Empire State Building Plane Crash - July 28,1945
Too late the pilot of the U.S. Army B-25 bomber with three men aboard, saw the Empire State Building loom up before his eyes. At 300 miles per hour, ...
http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm

But you are comparing a 1945 building to a 1970's building(Which as we know is UNDOUBTABLY designed to take on such hits). Also to a building that never saw an airplane hit.

even if the impacts were identical there still wouldn't be any comparison.
the E.S.B and wtc 1,2 were entirely different constructions.

Which one in your opinion was better matched against the collision. Wait don't answer, its already answered for you by one of the buildings chief architects.

No matter, to me the evidence is profound whether you see it or not. I have seen enough, and heard enough.
so without gathering all the information you need to make an informed opinion you have heard and seen enough?

if you run your business the way you form your opinions you are doomed.

Which one in your opinion was better matched against the collision. Wait don't answer, its already answered for you by one of the buildings chief architects.
the E.S.B was better matched because of its construction.

so without gathering all the information you need to make an informed opinion you have heard and seen enough?

if you run your business the way you form your opinions you are doomed.

the E.S.B was better matched because of its construction.


I've got to go now. I will be back tommorow. Interesting discussion. I have "seen enough evidence" of the extent of your brainwashing, its very thorough, it cleaned out your logic sphere. Good night. We will continue this later. Sorry but you're just like your Buffalo friend.

Edit: Buffalo is more interesting, he has information to provide. You are just striking back with retorts.

I have worked with termite in the military, it comes in grenades, cutting bars, and powder, for destruction of weapons, classified materials, that is when you use the grenade, it melts through the weapon or start a unstoppable fire with what ever it comes in contact with, cutting bars are for demolition of armored doors, cutting through hulls, safes, and barriers, powder is used in welding things together in a hurry, the amount of termite needed to cause streams of molten steel to run would be in the tons, and again once the molten steel is away from the energy source it begins to freeze, and return to a solid state, unless it is kept at a constant temperature, and again no one has produced pictures of the supposed yards deep molten steel at the bottom of the WTC, or streams of the material flooding out of the building, and it wouldn't flood out of the building as at it's molten temperature in would burn through any thing it ran over, in steel mills they use ceramic clay lined ditches to run molten steel to the molds to make the pigs.

I have worked with termite in the military, it comes in grenades, cutting bars, and powder, for destruction of weapons, classified materials, that is when you use the grenade, it melts through the weapon or start a unstoppable fire with what ever it comes in contact with, cutting bars are for demolition of armored doors, cutting through hulls, safes, and barriers, powder is used in welding things together in a hurry, the amount of termite needed to cause streams of molten steel to run would be in the tons, and again once the molten steel is away from the energy source it begins to freeze, and return to a solid state, unless it is kept at a constant temperature, and again no one has produced pictures of the supposed yards deep molten steel at the bottom of the WTC, or streams of the material flooding out of the building, and it wouldn't flood out of the building as at it's molten temperature in would burn through any thing it ran over, in steel mills they use ceramic clay lined ditches to run molten steel to the molds to make the pigs.

Thanks for the info Buffalo. I've got to go, have work to do. We will continue this on another date. Thanks for the time contributed.

The Empire State building used a wall support construction technique, so when the B-25 hit it only took out about 25% of the load bearing capacity of the structure, and it didn't penetrate through the building, The WTC towers used a core construction technique, were the load bearing was at the center of the building, the wall were just for weather protection, and the greatest difference was that the 767's penetrated completely through the buildings, taking out the core supports, with impact damage and heat damage, here is a comparison between a 767 and a B-25, and you can quickly see there is no comparison in the amount of impact damage between the 2 aircraft, a 767, comes in at a, Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg) or 185 tons, A B 25 weighs in at a trim Empty weight: 21,120 lb (9,580 kg) Loaded weight: 33,510 lb (15,200 kg) 16 1/2 tons
A 767 moves at, Mach 0.80 530 mph (851 kph) a B-25 comes in at a Maximum speed: 275 mph (239 knots, 442 km/h) Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h) and the B-25 that hit the ESB was only at cruse speed.

You are just striking back with retorts.
anybody that reads this thread will notice i have been asking you questions that you can't answer.

The Empire State building used a wall support construction technique, so when the B-25 hit it only took out about 25% of the load bearing capacity of the structure, and it didn't penetrate through the building, The WTC towers used a core construction technique, were the load bearing was at the center of the building, the wall were just for weather protection, and the greatest difference was that the 767's penetrated completely through the buildings, taking out the core supports, with impact damage and heat damage, here is a comparison between a 767 and a B-25, and you can quickly see there is no comparison in the amount of impact damage between the 2 aircraft, a 767, comes in at a, Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg) or 185 tons, A B 25 weighs in at a trim Empty weight: 21,120 lb (9,580 kg) Loaded weight: 33,510 lb (15,200 kg) 16 1/2 tons
A 767 moves at, Mach 0.80 530 mph (851 kph) a B-25 comes in at a Maximum speed: 275 mph (239 knots, 442 km/h) Cruise speed: 230 mph (200 knots, 370 km/h) and the B-25 that hit the ESB was only at cruse speed.

Granted, but I saw the architect on video saying they designed it for the largest aircraft at the time.

anybody that reads this thread will notice i have been asking you questions that you can't answer.

I have answered to every one of your "questions" more like challenges to me. I didn't give you what you wanted to hear, IMO. I have said COUNTLESS times that what I'm posting is a reverberation of their videos. This has nothing to do with MY opinion.

I have answered to every one of your "questions" more like challenges to me.
reread the thread businesswiz.
challenges to you? no, they are challenges to your theory that explosives brought down the twin towers.

A very good discussion of the factors of the collapse of the WTC's

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=150&#entry30423

Businesswiz

Granted, but I saw the architect on video saying they designed it for the largest aircraft at the time.

Which building? and list site, were the claim was made, unless you armor a building I don't think that claim can be made with any reliably certainty, the MTO of a 747 is 970,000lb. that's 400 tons + and your going to design a building that will with stand a strike from 400+ tons at Mach .885, cruse, and max out at .92, what kind of bunker do you think you would end up with? and what would be the cost?

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50136
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=3887
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53365
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51554
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=54223
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52123

edit
the mods need to gather all these threads in one place.
it really does get tiresome to keep searching the forums for all of them, especially when it's the same garbage over and over.

Slow down you bastards :p

I'm not sure exactly why running an excercise on that day makes it a bleak world, but it is a weird coincidence.
Weird coincidence indeed, my point is that it apparently occured twice what are the odds on that? That excercises similar to the actual events would be in progress as the real events took place on both 9/11 and 7/7. If these excercises were indeed taking place than your only conclusion is "weird coincidence"?

The NIST report doesn't address the government response...
I asked what the NIST report had to say specifically about building 7?

the mods need to gather all these threads in one place.
it really does get tiresome to keep searching the forums for all of them, especially when it's the same garbage over and over.
Why do the mods need to that? Since the first year this whole site is just the same garbage regurgitated again and again. There are hundreds of threads that could be merged. If searching for them is tiresome not to mention posting in them then stop doing it.

Originally Posted by spidergoat
I'm not sure exactly why running an excercise on that day makes it a bleak world, but it is a weird coincidence.


The fact is that on any given day the government is running some kind of exercise, so I would think it would be questionable if there were no exercises running.

Originally Posted by spidergoat



The fact is that on any given day the government is running some kind of exercise, so I would think it would be questionable if there were no exercises running.

What about the familial ties to Bush from the Security company running the WTCs, and the strange black outs. It doesn't add up.

Dear Businesswiz

I hope you are well and thank you for all your recent posts

The one thing which really annoys me about the conspiracy theorists is that they are actually letting GWB off the hook for his ()and his adminsitrations)gross miscompetence...

9-11 did happen how it happened and was a terrorist action aginst humanity... However if the GWB administration had been in the slightest bit competent it could have been avoided.

##################

take care
zak

Zakariya, no Zakariya the blame for 9/11, falls squarely on the Clinton administration's miss handling of 8 years of security, lack of detailed briefings, and general contempt for the intelligence community,and Gore's harassment of the incoming administration, after the election.

dear Buffalo,

but would it have been avoided if the republicans had been in power in the 90's aswell, i am afriad my friend you cant answer this cos they wont in power in the 90's... therefore bush is to blame for not putting his house in order...

I just do not get how you can let a civilian airliner fly into the mtiwn towers let alone the Pentagon... Something had to have been going terribly wrong!!!

Obviously i am not saying that the clinton Adminstration was competent either.

##########################
take care
zak

What about the familial ties to Bush from the Security company running the WTCs, and the strange black outs. It doesn't add up.

John O'Neill was in charge of security. Did you see the Frontline episode about him? "The Man Who Knew"? He is above reproach and was killed in the towers that day.

Zakariya, no Zakariya the blame for 9/11, falls squarely on the Clinton administration's miss handling of 8 years of security, lack of detailed briefings, and general contempt for the intelligence community,and Gore's harassment of the incoming administration, after the election.

LOL! LACK OF DETAILED BRIEFINGS, ARE YOU INSANE?

GORE'S HARASSMENT? GORE PREVENTED BUSH FROM LISTENING TO RICHARD CLARK? GET THE F OUTTA HERE.

(This is the kind of mendacity required to be a Republican today)

Zakariya, no Zakariya the blame for 9/11, falls squarely on the Clinton administration's miss handling of 8 years of security, lack of detailed briefings, and general contempt for the intelligence community,and Gore's harassment of the incoming administration, after the election.

Bizarre !!

It was all Clintons fault???

Al Gore prevented the Bush Admin from doing anything??????

Jesus H Christ.

John O'Neill was in charge of security. Did you see the Frontline episode about him? "The Man Who Knew"? He is above reproach and was killed in the towers that day.

Look back at my posts. I appologized for that "HEAD" comment. Look back. He is a key principle of that company which provided the security. This is what the video said.

And please keep this topic geared to 911. I know for a fact that Clinton did more good to this country than Bush, and he's still doing good. The same can not be said for Bush senior, who served his time, and is done contributing to this nation.

I'm not sure how that's an issue. A principle in a corporation is not necessarily involved with the day to day running, and in any case, could not have comprimised the security of WTC without John O'Neill knowing about it.

Dear Businesswiz

I hope you are well and thank you for all your recent posts

The one thing which really annoys me about the conspiracy theorists is that they are actually letting GWB off the hook for his ()and his adminsitrations)gross miscompetence...

9-11 did happen how it happened and was a terrorist action aginst humanity... However if the GWB administration had been in the slightest bit competent it could have been avoided.

##################

take care
zak

I agree with that. But I feel they urged it on. They didn't do anything about it, BECAUSE they wanted it to occur. This allowed them to go where they are now. And I do think they had a control demo going as well, because again as I pointed out before, they knew the buildings wouldn't fall because they were designed to stand in such event. Taking down the WTCS instilled fear in the avrg US citizen and thats why all the spying all the alterations to the true intent of the constitution... yadayada. This is my stand.

I'm not sure how that's an issue. A principle in a corporation is not necessarily involved with the day to day running, and in any case, could not have comprimised the security of WTC without John O'Neill knowing about it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm (Interesting, check this out.)

Wiki: Securacom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securacom

The WTC's were NOT designed to withstand such an event.

Impacts of airliners

The towers were struck by hijacked Boeing 767 jet planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. A typical Boeing 767 is 180 feet (55 m) long and has a wingspan of 156 feet (48 m), with a capacity of up to 24,000 US gallons (91 m³) of jet fuel. The planes hit the towers at very high speeds. Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the 1 WTC, the north tower; flight 175 hit 2 WTC, the south tower, at about 590 mph (950 km/h). In addition to severing a significant number of load-bearing columns, the resulting explosions in each tower ignited 10,000 gallons[2] (c. 40 m³) of jet fuel and immediately spread the fire to several different floors while consuming paper, furniture, carpeting, computers, books, walls, framing and other items in all the affected floors.

The buildings had in fact been designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707-320, in the event one was lost in fog while looking to land. The modeled aircraft weighed 263,000 lb (119 metric tons) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h), as in approach and landing.[2] As energy increases with the square of speed, the 767s that hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the modeled impact. Nonetheless, the impacts alone did not cause the towers to collapse. [wikipedia]

The WTC's were NOT designed to withstand such an event.

Impacts of airliners

The towers were struck by hijacked Boeing 767 jet planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. A typical Boeing 767 is 180 feet (55 m) long and has a wingspan of 156 feet (48 m), with a capacity of up to 24,000 US gallons (91 m³) of jet fuel. The planes hit the towers at very high speeds. Flight 11 was traveling roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) when it crashed into the 1 WTC, the north tower; flight 175 hit 2 WTC, the south tower, at about 590 mph (950 km/h). In addition to severing a significant number of load-bearing columns, the resulting explosions in each tower ignited 10,000 gallons[2] (c. 40 m³) of jet fuel and immediately spread the fire to several different floors while consuming paper, furniture, carpeting, computers, books, walls, framing and other items in all the affected floors.

The buildings had in fact been designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, the Boeing 707-320, in the event one was lost in fog while looking to land. The modeled aircraft weighed 263,000 lb (119 metric tons) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h), as in approach and landing.[2] As energy increases with the square of speed, the 767s that hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the modeled impact. Nonetheless, the impacts alone did not cause the towers to collapse. [wikipedia]

This bears no poof, for the 707's had more fuel. Watch the videos, they clearly compare both airplanes, and their propensity to damage. They are both equivalents in terms of the degree of destruction. Watch the video!

I doubt the towers could withstand either type of airplane, given the weakness of the fireproofing. The building's design was not at fault. No one designed the building to withstand a deliberate terrorist attack at high speed, only an accidental crash while an airplane was looking for the airport in bad weather at low speed.

They did not have computers in those days that could simulate a crash. There is no guarantee that their design would work as intended.

I agree with that. But I feel they urged it on. They didn't do anything about it, BECAUSE they wanted it to occur. This allowed them to go where they are now.
i suppose you mean iraq. bush didn't need to "let" 911 happen or are you forgetting about WMD.
And I do think they had a control demo going as well, because again as I pointed out before, they knew the buildings wouldn't fall because they were designed to stand in such event.
this is absolutely false, a lie. wtc 1,2 was not designed to withstand an impact of a 767 at full speed.
Taking down the WTCS instilled fear in the avrg US citizen and thats why all the spying all the alterations to the true intent of the constitution... yadayada. This is my stand.
the government has been spying on it's citizens for the past 30 years, another example of you not doing your homework.

I doubt the towers could withstand either type of airplane, given the weakness of the fireproofing.
the videos of the impact of the north tower shows parts of the plane exiting the opposite side of the impact, the landig gear and engines were found blocks away.

just because you have taken physics classes at mit does not meant shit. and yes, I am an electrical engineering major, and I have taken all of the general engineering stuff (like materials, statics, solid mechanic, physics 1,2, and an elective physics). so I am approximately as qualified as this guy, and I would not say I understand enough about to make any such claims. however, I seem to know more about it than that guy. for example, I know material can pass its elastic limit and not break for some time still, which he apparently does not know.

Since you are so well versed in the college physics, could you explain why buildings collapsed so fast? If you'll drop a ball down in air, it will reach land in approximately t=sqrt(2L/g) secs. If you'll drop a ball down in a pool with a viscous liquid, it will reach the bottom much slower. Imagine debris of collapsing buildings as an equivalent of the viscous liquid, however, buildings were falling approximately with acceleration of the free fall? Why is that? I don't imply conspiracy necessarily, I wonder why? Steel beam core seems didn't slow down fall at all.

That's what happens in a catastrophic collapse. These buildings were mostly hollow, not like a castle made of rock.

That's what happens in a catastrophic collapse. These buildings were mostly hollow, not like a castle made of rock.

Right they were made of steel and lots of it. Steel is stronger than rock. I wish more people would come to this forum and get their take on. This is to much of the same. I now only what 5-8 people think.

Spider watch the NEW movie I posted. Tell me what you think. Thank you for your commentary.


Btw I forgot, how did you explain the squibs? Show me proof, video, or pictures of other buildings falling with out controlled demo that show squibs. Thanks.

Businesswiz

Btw I forgot, how did you explain the squibs?

The things that you call squibs was the over pressure of the collapsing floors, as the side walls cracked or were torn open, the over pressure of the air escaped, and with the smoke from the fires and the dust of the debris it looked a lot like squibs, pulse the location of the so called squib charges on a building like that would have been at the core, that is were the load bearing structure was, look at the construction, the building was built around a central core, no charges would be needed to take the walls down as they bore none of the structural strength of the building.

OK this is everything that I have been saying, and it comes from MIT, how much more authority can you get than a MIT professor?

Read the article, it's good.


http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 2001
Inferno at the World Trade Center, NY
As in the morning hours of Sept. 11 I was anxiously watching on TV the dramatic events taking
place in New York City, and saw the two World Trade Center towers engulfed in immense
flames brought about by terrorists who deliberately crashed two passenger jets into them, my
training in Structural Engineering instantly elicited in me visions of doom, and a feeling that the
towers were in imminent danger of collapse. Still, knowing that half a decade earlier the towers
had resisted massive damage in a terrorist attack, and being unaware of similar cases of
skyscraper collapse, I hoped against reason that they might survive yet again. To my horror, I
then witnessed the unthinkable unfolding in front of my eyes. In retrospect, I should have been
100% sure that they would fail, but the idea was so disgusting that I allowed my wishful thinking
to prevail instead. Soon after the tragedy occurred, cooler thoughts and the engineer in me
returned, and I began to ponder about the mechanics that led to the catastrophe.
Why did they collapse?
From an engineering point of view, there were three causes to the massive structural damage that
led to ultimate failure. These are the impact of the aircraft, the subsequent explosion, and most
importantly, the raging fire caused by the vast amounts of jet fuel carried by the planes. Burning
fuel must have also cascaded down floor openings to the levels below.
It has been reported that the towers were designed for the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft then
flying the skies. Considering that one of the towers survived for at nearly an hour, and the other
almost two hours before collapsing, this appears to validate this claim. It has also been opined by
some, among them the building's architect, that the towers did ultimately fail because the 767 is a
far bigger jet carrying much more fuel than the design 707 aircraft. This view is largely incorrect.
The takeoff weight of a fully loaded Boeing 707-320 is 336,000 lbs., and it carries a fuel load of
23,000 gallons of jet fuel. By contrast, the maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 767-200 is some
395,000 lbs., and carries a fuel load of 24,000 gallons. (If jet fuel weighs like kerosene, this
would represent some 164,000 lbs. of fuel, or about half the weight of a fully loaded aircraft).
Thus, while the 767 is indeed a somewhat larger aircraft, it is not significantly so, while its
amount of fuel load is nearly the same as in the 707. In addition, both ill-fated planes were only
lightly loaded with passengers, so they did not carry their full takeoff weight. The implication is
that the buildings may indeed have been designed for the impact load caused by a commercial
airliner, but the designers never considered the fuel load and inferno that would surely ensue.
Thus, the suggestion that the buildings were designed for the crash of an aircraft is ultimately
self-delusion and perhaps also public relations on the part of the design team, because not all
aspects of a crash, i.e. the explosion and fire, were taken into account, perhaps because the
probability of such an occurrence was deemed insignificant.
From information available on the web, it appears that the weight of each building was mainly
carried by an inner core of columns surrounding elevator shafts and stairways, while a dense
lattice of external columns spaced 39 inches on center formed an outer tube intended principally
to prevent the building from overturning when subjected to strong lateral forces, such as those
elicited by hurricane winds. The floors where supported by a grid of truss beams that carried the
weight of the floors to the inner core, while the floors in turn provided lateral support that
prevented buckling of the columns.

From information available on the web, it appears that the weight of each building was mainly
carried by an inner core of columns surrounding elevator shafts and stairways, while a dense
lattice of external columns spaced 39 inches on center formed an outer tube intended principally
to prevent the building from overturning when subjected to strong lateral forces, such as those
elicited by hurricane winds. The floors where supported by a grid of truss beams that carried the
weight of the floors to the inner core, while the floors in turn provided lateral support that
prevented buckling of the columns.
this is the most important, the construction.
wtc 1,2 was basicly a cantilever design with an outer shell stiffener, the interior columns carried the entire load of the building while the outer shell kept it from twisting.
how the floors were hung between the columns and the wall also played a part in determining how the buildings fell.
the design of wtc 1,2 provided almost an acre of uninterrupted floor space on each floor. each floor was also covered in 4 inches of concrete.
after the core columns was fractured by the aircraft and further softened by the fires collapse was inevitable.

leopold99, yes that's what I've been trying to point out.

after the core columns was fractured by the aircraft and further softened by the fires collapse was inevitable.
Why? More exactly why domino-like kind of collapse? It's not like fire softened entire metal core, just a floor or two worth of beams. Kinetic energy of one floor shift was enough to pulverize entire building in the freefall-like fashion? If you'll hit a long peace of metal rod really, really hard it will buckle. Why top floors didn't just "pivot" and fall over?

Why? More exactly why domino-like kind of collapse? It's not like fire softened entire metal core, just a floor or two worth of beams.
it was more like 5 or 6 floors, not just one.
Kinetic energy of one floor shift was enough to pulverize entire building in the freefall-like fashion?
after the core columns weakened the entire weight of the floors above the impact zone acted essentially like a pile driver
If you'll hit a long peace of metal rod really, really hard it will buckle. Why top floors didn't just "pivot" and fall over?
you must remember that there were 47 core columns.
i am positive that the impact buckled some of them.
the rest were softened by the fires enough to allow the upper floors to squish them together.
if you watch the videos of the collapse you will notice that the collapse initiates at the impact site and proceeds from the top down, unlike any controlled demolition.

One of the videos affirms that thought you have. THEIR video proves there was a vast amount of molten metal at the bottom of the site for yards, deep below. That might affirm the claim of there being an explosion at the bottom of the building, or a reaction with large, easy to move, cheap Thermite. If the Thermite wasn't used then w.e. someother explosion. But I like how CIA and FBI were at the scene just after 911 for months not allowing anyone to enter the site. This was in papers and in the vid.



Okay, large pools of molten steel is easy to explain. Where do you think the building electrical supply comes in. For a building like that we are talking ungodly amount of wattage even when closed. Large pools of steel would be a piece of cake to make with such voltage. And with it insulated by what is around it it would remain hot for some time. Much simpler answer than thermite or bombs and much more realistic.

As for the FBI and CIA not allowing anyone in as they investigate that is standard operating procedure in any type of investigation. DUH

Okay, large pools of molten steel is easy to explain. Where do you think the building electrical supply comes in. For a building like that we are talking ungodly amount of wattage even when closed. Large pools of steel would be a piece of cake to make with such voltage. And with it insulated by what is around it it would remain hot for some time. Much simpler answer than thermite or bombs and much more realistic.

As for the FBI and CIA not allowing anyone in as they investigate that is standard operating procedure in any type of investigation. DUH

What wattage are you talking about? These pools were there for weeks, I think they would have turned it off.

Investigation, sure. They spent $600,000 on an investigation that keeps people wanting more info after years of investigating. Bill Clinton's investigation totaled something like 4,000,000 if not more. I think it was 40,000,000 but still that's alot more. And he had a blowjob, while 1000's of people died in the other case. Think about that.

dixonmassey

Why top floors didn't just "pivot" and fall over?

Newton's Laws, what forces were applied to the upper floors to pivot them? there were no side forces, and with out any directional force to over come inertia, the last force acting at the time of collapse is gravity, and the direction of gravity is straight down. Inertia it a powerful force to over come.

Please post the site, were these pictures are at?

it was more like 5 or 6 floors, not just one.

after the core columns weakened the entire weight of the floors above the impact zone acted essentially like a pile driver

you must remember that there were 47 core columns.
i am positive that the impact buckled some of them.
the rest were softened by the fires enough to allow the upper floors to squish them together.
if you watch the videos of the collapse you will notice that the collapse initiates at the impact site and proceeds from the top down, unlike any controlled demolition.

I'm sorry you make no sense, while he does. That's a 101 story building. 6 floors would not effect it that much, unless thermite or w.e. was there to assist. It would of just tipped over, like he said.

Businesswiz, you are not looking at the way building are constructed, and you are totally ignoring Newton's Laws of Motion.

dixonmassey



Newton's Laws, what forces were applied to the upper floors to pivot them? there were no side forces, and with out any directional force to over come inertia, the last force acting at the time of collapse is gravity, and the direction of gravity is straight down. Inertia it a powerful force to over come.
Just place a block of wood on two pillars and kick out one of them. There is going to be a torque causing a block to pivot and fall over. Also, place a long metal rod vertically and drop a massive piece of something on it, rod will buckle causing that something to pivot and fall over instead of nailing rod into the ground.

Okay, large pools of molten steel is easy to explain. Where do you think the building electrical supply comes in. For a building like that we are talking ungodly amount of wattage even when closed.
What no short circuit protection of the NY grid? City electrical supply was not designed to emulate electrical arc furnace and melt tonnes of steel.

Build a tower with 100 blocks, around a central core and see what happens, you still are ignoring Newton's Law, and something was not dropped on the tower, supports were taken away, you still can't get around inertia, something has to introduce side motion to the top of the Tower to move it in a direction, and you discount the remains of the outer wall, there job was not to allow torque to take place, so basically you have a construction that is sliding down the central core, the bottom was like a spike driving up the top, I guess I would call it a impalement,

Buildings aren't designed to support the collapse of entire floors. If the WTC was solid concrete or stone, then maybe there would have been a chance, but they were steel girders. Granted in some circumstances steel is comparable to stone, but it doesn't have such massive reserves of compressive strength.

In this situation the difference between a collapse and a free-fall would be negligible.

I want everyone to watch these videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M&mode=related&search=

THERE ARE OTHER PARTS TO THIS EPISODE THEY ARE AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE VIDEO. IF YOU DON'T SEE IT LET ME KNOW.

businesswiz
believe it or not i too was on the "explosives brought down the wtc" bandwagon but the more i looked into it and did research on it the more i am convinced that the impacts and fires were responsible.
there are 2 primary reasons i say this:
1. the collapse initiated at the impact site and the buildings fell from the top down. this is totally inconsistant with any controlled demolition i have ever seen.
2. there was no trace of bomb debris found in the wreckage. i find it impossible to believe that nobody brought a bomb sniffing dog with them to the crash site especially since the wtc have been targets for terrorists in the past.

businesswiz
believe it or not i too was on the "explosives brought down the wtc" bandwagon but the more i looked into it and did research on it the more i am convinced that the impacts and fires were responsible.
there are 2 primary reasons i say this:
1. the collapse initiated at the impact site and the buildings fell from the top down. this is totally inconsistant with any controlled demolition i have ever seen.
2. there was no trace of bomb debris found in the wreckage. i find it impossible to believe that nobody brought a bomb sniffing dog with them to the crash site especially since the wtc have been targets for terrorists in the past.


No wonder bodies are only being found now on the WTC site, AFTER 5 YEARS! Because no bomb sniffing or any kind of independent non biased sniffing was done there!

Yes, the the demolition was done by no ordinary demolitioners (Who's work you might have seen on TLC or the Discover Channel) as you must have already gathered if you were to think on my side of things, I beg you pardon. These guys are covert and advanced.

If the buildings collapsed as a result of a bomb, why go to the effort of arranging to crash an airplane into it? Terrorists set off bombs, like the first Trade Center bombing.

And furthermore, why not find actual WMD in Iraq? We've got plenty. The Russians have plenty. We could have planted some of ours or bought some of theirs, and bam, instant support for the war.

I'm someone who stands between both sides. Both sides have facts that don't seem right.

Like the fact that the buildings collapesed at the same rate as letting something drop free fall from that height. That implies that as each floor pancaked onto the one below, it met no resistance at all to slow down the rate of decent. That dosen't seem right. Now watching doco's that explain how it collapsed they state the the floors pancaked onto one another, but implied that he core would remain, but then had no explanation for why in the real world it didn't but in their computer models it did?

But at the other end, if they were brought down by demo's, that means the building would of had to been wired up before hand. And we all saw the buildings collapse from the point of impact, which means that they first cutting explosives would of went of at the point of impact. So not only would they have had to be very accurate in where they hit the planes into the building, but that would also imply that an impact like that didn't interfere with the set up explosives. That is a bit hard to swallow also.

The other thing that is hard to swallow is the fact that amongst all the caos after the collapse they found time to rig up building 7 for a perfect implosion.
Now everyone knows these things take weeks to set up, but in the space of 8-9 hours, they managed to do it, with apparently ragging fires in the building.
Now does anyone believe that??

The force of many floors of a modern office building falling even one foot is many times greater than any particular floor was designed to handle. Therefore, the resistance they provided was not enough to slow the collapse by any significant amount.

Ok, spider, i'll take that, but what's your take on building 7? How do you explain that?

Damage at a key point can bring down an entire structure, as in Oklahoma City. All it would take is some damage on key supports near the base.

Businesswiz, watched and LMAO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmE...elated&search=

THERE ARE OTHER PARTS TO THIS EPISODE THEY ARE AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE VIDEO. IF YOU DON'T SEE IT LET ME KNOW.

The guy's in the video are ignoring the Law's of motion, and there explanation of the plane crash site is laughable, I was in on the recovery of several aircraft in Vietnam, and a Huey even in a terminal velocity decent is going much slower than that 767, and in most case's what was left of the craft was confetti, small pieces, not much bigger than your hand, I was also involved in the recovery of a F-4 in Vietnam, that I had the sad opportunity to see go down, and it struck the ground at about a 45deg. angle and all that was left of that aircraft was a smoking hole in the ground, with 2 engines compacted into a pile of metal about the size of a Volkswagen, your talking about engines that are 30 feet long, no wing sections, no tail sections, just a condensed pile of shredded metal most of which was no bigger than you hand, some of the instruments survived, and that is what we had to recover, as they were rated secret. Then in 1972 I was involved in the recovery of a F-105 at Ft.Hood Texas, that crashed during the Gallant Hand exercises, and again I had the opportunity to see this aircraft go into the ground, at about a 30deg. angle, and again all that was left of the aircraft was a pile of shredded metal, no complete wing or tail section, a crushed engine, and confetti metal scraps.The two Idiots need to learn their science, and realize that a aircraft in a vertical dive is not going to leave any complete assemblies to recover other than engine parts.

spider are you saying building 7 came down of its own accord?

spidergoat, your right, the debris from Tower one, spilled on to Bldg. 6, which spilled into the bottom of 7, there is a aerial picture that I saw on one of the sights on the collapse, and a diagrams of the position of the buildings and when you look at the debris avalanche that is what looks like what happened, the debris spilling across the street would have cut the bottom supports at the first floor level, and down comes the rest of the building.

buffalo, yes i have seen the photos of the massive gash that on one of the south corner