WTC Collapses

The other day i was watching a youtube video, i dont have the link but i am certain someone like youself must have seen it.

anyway, there was slow mo of the collapse and at some point debris gets pushed out from the pressure of the falling floors and this person thinking they hit the lottery by claiming that that is evidence of an explosion but it did not have the intensity of an explosion and clearly was just from pressure but it is just if you are unsophisticated and a little simple you would convince yourself of something that just didnt happen the way you want to believe that it happened.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how would you define "reasonable person", someone who agrees with your world view?
do you think that only foreigners could orchestrate 911?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

as a matter of record i used the word "consistent".
nowhere did i say that a top down controlled demolition was impossible.
i've yet to see any controlled demolitions that fell in a manner consistent with the collapse of the twin towers.

let's just suppose this conspiracy for a moment.
how and where were these explosives placed in the buildings?
were they planted from the ground floor up to the top?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=m1FzABcQAyg

 

would you say the same for wtc7?

 

i can't view videos with the machine i'm using.
i believe i said that already.

no. as a matter of fact WTC 7 looked exactly like a controlled demolition.
knowing where WTC7 was constructed does however explain why it fell like it did.

 

it is a presentation of this work:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

 

so if it looked exactly like a demolition, how do you know it wasn't?

how does the location of where it was built explain how it fell exactly like a controlled demolition?

are you saying that if someone did blow it up, nobody would ever know because of its location?

 

and?
scientist can "explain" how life arose too but that doesn't prove it happened that way.

you never did answer the questions i asked about where the "bombs" were placed.

something else i must add here, i will only review video that was shot [/I] at the time of collapse[/I].
it's all to easy to "doctor" videos and pictures.

 

because building 7 was essentially built over a large hole in the ground.
the base of building 7 had "outriggers" to span that hole.

 

hmmmm....you were asking for speculation, i gave you a link by a mechanical engineer on how it might have been done, but you respond with "that's not proof". did you see what you did there? had you originally asked for proof (rather than speculation) of where explosives/bombs/incendaries were placed. I would have said "i don't know, and there would be no way of knowing without an investigation". the technique you used is known as "raising the bar", "bait and switch", or "moving the goalposts".

"is there any evidence wtc7 was blown up"
"...well it fell at freefal speed, many witnesses heard an explosion like baabooom!! and it fell straight down neatly at freefall speed, then there were pools of molten metal found under the rubble, melted girders and girders with sulphidation of steel like the steel was evaporated, the like of which we have never seen before!"
"....But that's not proof it was blown up."

the link i gave was a mechanical engineer using empirical data to show how it was possible. if you are asking exactly how it was really done, then that cannot be known without an investigation.

that is true with any evidence, and no matter who is giving the evidence to you, witnesses could be lying, scientific data manipulated, pictures doctored, etc.
this is why a scientific experiment needs to be repeatable and a scientific hypotheses needs to be tested against the data- science does not simply rely on a scientist's opinion or a single result of a single experiment. this is why i am curious why people agree that wtc7 looks exactly like a demolition, but believe it could not have been a demolition without any data to support that view. that is very curious.

 

it is generally understood as reasonable intelligence or even average intelligence.

 

even if building 7 was a controlled demo (to take down a destroyed building) what significance is that?

 

that's a bit lkie saying "what is the significance of another shooter on the grassey knoll"

 

The cruise speeds of the 707 vs. the 767 and what many experts say about the idea of jet initiated fires taking down the WTC buildings.

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.

You're right. However, back in post 324, you -did- say this:
"[The twin towers] were designed to withstand impact from the fastest plane at that time which was slower than the 767s."

The truth of the matter, however, is that the cruising speed of the 707 is 77 mph faster then that of a 707, as I made clear in post 331.

You're right, missed the fog bit.

No one has said that it was impossible to bring down the WTC buildings. However, many experts disagree that the WTC buildings could have been brought down by plane crash initiated fires.

 

how does that answer my question? we are not discussing JFK, if you want to discuss that then open a thread on it.

 

Just be sure to educate yourself on the facts first.

 

maybe not with a radio controlled toy.

 

why the fog would a plane fly slowly through fog?
for fog's sake! its a fogging plane!

 

This post is in response to John's post 433 in this thread.

It definitely wasn't done to take down a destroyed building. -However-, there -is- evidence that people knew the building was going to be demolished. I have always maintained that Silverstein's "pull it" comment was suspicious, but until just now I didn't realize just -how- suspicious. The new evidence that I have just found makes it clear how feeble the official story is on this point:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

As to the significance of demolishing the building, it would severely compromise the official story; if WTC 7 was demolished secretly, why not WTC 1 and 2? And always the question: who had the capability to carry these operations out?