Honest question about 911

[LA RAM FAN]

Don't know what it is about the conspiracy thread section, but it seems to bring out the nut cases.

yeah the nutcases that ditched junior high school science classes who are cluless in the fact that fire doesnt melt steel and cause towers to collapse at free fall speed,that it takes several hours over a period of time to do so.hee hee.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Doesn't anyone consider the fact that for three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete destruction of the buildings.

The buildings collapsed. What 'shoulda' been left behind that wouldn't raise your suspicions?

Just for a start, how about the bottom two thirds of the North Tower still standing, damaged but not destroyed?

Okay....what structure in the bottom 2/3 of the north tower would stop the upper 1/3rd from falling all the way to the ground?

Not a thing to stop the upper third of the building from falling down to the ground, but then NOT destroying the lower 2/3 while it does so, it would be more likely that significant mass from the upper part of the building would fall away from the building and drop to street level, rather than have to drop through the still standing and as yet not structurally compromised lower 2/3 of the building.
Not only that, but it is not only totally improbable but rather impossible for the mass of the upper part of the building to descend at 64% of the acceleration of gravity while pulverizing the structure under it.

all of the science talk of the collapse of building 7 is all irrelevent,what IS relevent is the testimony of barry jennings who talked about explosives going off in the basement hours before it even collapsed,before even the towers collapsed,they were mistimed explosions.

that was why they killed him and disguised his death as something else at the hospital because his testimony would have shreadded to pieces the lies of the NIST report.

all the paid shills here that defend the officail version cant get around that fact.they never have any answers either for the fact there were other buildings in the area much closer to the towers than bld 7 and much more sever fires yet they did not collapse.they always play dodgeball with those facts always ignoring them like their handlers instruct them to.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Doesn't anyone consider the fact that for three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete destruction of the buildings. doesn't that strike you as unique? also, as an alternative to the NIST white wash job,
Please see 911SpeakOut.org The World Needs Truth
also Patriots Question 9 11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9 11 Commission Report

9/11/2001 = the BIG LIE

your making way too much sense for the paid shills on here to comprehend.hee hee.

 

[whitehall]

An honest version of 9-11 can't separate pseudo sci-fi speculation from political agenda. Why would the United States or renegade factions of the US government want to destroy the symbol of capitalism and kill 3,000 innocent people? If you want to create a theory for the intentional destruction of the World Trade Center by agents of the United States you have to offer a reasonable political scenario which includes president Clinton's negligence or compliance. Any destructive device would have to have been installed during the Clinton administration after the first attempt on the WTC.

 

[n0spam4me]

An honest version of 9-11 can't separate pseudo sci-fi speculation from political agenda. Why would the United States or renegade factions of the US government want to destroy the symbol of capitalism and kill 3,000 innocent people? If you want to create a theory for the intentional destruction of the World Trade Center by agents of the United States you have to offer a reasonable political scenario which includes president Clinton's negligence or compliance. Any destructive device would have to have been installed during the Clinton administration after the first attempt on the WTC.

" pseudo sci-fi speculation" your attitude is showing.
Note that WTC7 dropped for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration and did so straight down, doesn't that make some sort of statement to you?
You ask a totally political question in your post, however, in my interpretation, it is possible to separate the physical reality from speculation about who did it or why. Bottom line here is that there is plenty of evidence to prove that the mainstream media account of what allegedly happened is WRONG. There were no airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001!

 

[whitehall]

An honest version of 9-11 can't separate pseudo sci-fi speculation from political agenda. Why would the United States or renegade factions of the US government want to destroy the symbol of capitalism and kill 3,000 innocent people? If you want to create a theory for the intentional destruction of the World Trade Center by agents of the United States you have to offer a reasonable political scenario which includes president Clinton's negligence or compliance. Any destructive device would have to have been installed during the Clinton administration after the first attempt on the WTC.

" pseudo sci-fi speculation" your attitude is showing.
Note that WTC7 dropped for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration and did so straight down, doesn't that make some sort of statement to you?
You ask a totally political question in your post, however, in my interpretation, it is possible to separate the physical reality from speculation about who did it or why. Bottom line here is that there is plenty of evidence to prove that the mainstream media account of what allegedly happened is WRONG. There were no airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001!

The impact of the fully fueled plane was through and through. In other words the heat generated by the explosion was evenly distributed. The support buckled and the building pancaked. Bill Clinton called the first attack on the WTC by the same people "a stupid act by stupid people" and went on to commit sodomy and attack a freaking defenseless country in Europe. What did Clinton know and when did he know it?

 

[Freewill]

Don't know what it is about the conspiracy thread section, but it seems to bring out the nut cases.

yeah the nutcases that ditched junior high school science classes who are cluless in the fact that fire doesnt melt steel and cause towers to collapse at free fall speed,that it takes several hours over a period of time to do so.hee hee.

Yawn, yes it can:

 

[Freewill]

An honest version of 9-11 can't separate pseudo sci-fi speculation from political agenda. Why would the United States or renegade factions of the US government want to destroy the symbol of capitalism and kill 3,000 innocent people? If you want to create a theory for the intentional destruction of the World Trade Center by agents of the United States you have to offer a reasonable political scenario which includes president Clinton's negligence or compliance. Any destructive device would have to have been installed during the Clinton administration after the first attempt on the WTC.

" pseudo sci-fi speculation" your attitude is showing.
Note that WTC7 dropped for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration and did so straight down, doesn't that make some sort of statement to you?
You ask a totally political question in your post, however, in my interpretation, it is possible to separate the physical reality from speculation about who did it or why. Bottom line here is that there is plenty of evidence to prove that the mainstream media account of what allegedly happened is WRONG. There were no airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001!

So what? Your fall time is obviously based on seismic data but estimates using videos show a longer time. Never the less it has been shown to all that the fall did not start at the bottom as would a controlled demolish but it started exactly where the planes hit. Here is a challenge, find video of another 110 story building that was hit by a plane and see how it fell. Oh right we do have an example WTC2. Which is interesting that they would let the first building hit stand longer then the second, wonder why they would do that? What it is with the 9/11 truthers is that they take things like the free fall BS and run with it as if it is gospel truth. Meanwhile ignoring the mass of evidence.

Any way, here is a link to a discussion of the fall.

9-11 Research Speed of Fall

 

[whitehall]

The 9-11 conspiracy relies on the theory that Americans helped the jihad maniacs bring down the WTC buildings but aside from junk science nothing makes sense. Why would they do it? Why didn't they follow up with whatever political or military agenda they had in mind? How could they mine the WTC with explosives and rely on split second timing with a bunch of suicidal jihad maniacs? How could the Clinton administration be involved? Where was the 4th plane headed and is the target still mined with explosives? Go back to crop circles.

 

[n0spam4me]

"Your fall time is obviously based on seismic data"

How do you figure that? The WTC7 2.25 sec of free fall is based on the video of the event. and it has been documented and agreed to by both NIST and AE911TRUTH.

 

[Freewill]

"Your fall time is obviously based on seismic data"

How do you figure that? The WTC7 2.25 sec of free fall is based on the video of the event. and it has been documented and agreed to by both NIST and AE911TRUTH.

Here is the same question asked NIST and their answer:

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

 

[n0spam4me]

"Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"

The NIST admits to the 2.25 sec of free fall, they simply attempt to bury it in a load of B.S. .... its not going away so easily. Free Fall is only achieved when there isn't any resistance under the falling mass, so the question remains, how is it that ALL of the resistance was removed and all at the same time?

 

[Freewill]

"Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"

The NIST admits to the 2.25 sec of free fall, they simply attempt to bury it in a load of B.S. .... its not going away so easily. Free Fall is only achieved when there isn't any resistance under the falling mass, so the question remains, how is it that ALL of the resistance was removed and all at the same time?

Of course, so a thinking person analyzes the situation. Obviously by the best of estimates there was free fall for a portion of the collapse. So that was caused by one thing, there was little obstruction. The question then becomes why was there little obstruction. YOU apparently think that the obstruction, for whatever reason, was removed through the use explosives. The NIST said this: "This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above."

So we are to believe that the conspirators decided to "pull" the building before the building was in flames or after? If before then the explosives were placed with the knowledge that the building would be damaged by the really big buildings falling or were they placed after the building was damaged in spite of the building already being on fire? Which of those two crazy scenarios do you believe?

 

[n0spam4me]

so, does anyone actually buy it, that is the excuse that WTC7 fell as it did, because for 8 stories of structure, the resistance was uniformly removed because of "columns buckling and losing their capacity to support" and this was the result of chaotic fires & damage to the south side of the building caused by rubble thrown off by the collapsing towers.
(?) The NIST offers up lame excuses!

To address the fires bit, have you ever been to an amusement park where there is supposed to be a building being consumed by fire, but its all effects, yes, there are flames & heat, but its all controlled and there is no danger of anything actually burning down. The only indication of fire in WTC7 is by way of seeing what is apparent in the flames from broken windows, whatever is really going on inside the building is out of sight and therefore unknown.

 

[SAYIT]

An honest version of 9-11 can't separate pseudo sci-fi speculation from political agenda. Why would the United States or renegade factions of the US government want to destroy the symbol of capitalism and kill 3,000 innocent people? If you want to create a theory for the intentional destruction of the World Trade Center by agents of the United States you have to offer a reasonable political scenario which includes president Clinton's negligence or compliance. Any destructive device would have to have been installed during the Clinton administration after the first attempt on the WTC.

Poppycock. All the experts agree that GW Bush spent a long weekend with a local Brownie (pre-Girl Scout) Troop wiring those buildings for a controlled demo and then had them eliminated at Sandy Hook to keep 'em quiet.

 

[SAYIT]

so, does anyone actually buy it, that is the excuse that WTC7 fell as it did, because for 8 stories of structure, the resistance was uniformly removed because of "columns buckling and losing their capacity to support" and this was the result of chaotic fires & damage to the south side of the building caused by rubble thrown off by the collapsing towers.
(?) The NIST offers up lame excuses!

To address the fires bit, have you ever been to an amusement park where there is supposed to be a building being consumed by fire, but its all effects, yes, there are flames & heat, but its all controlled and there is no danger of anything actually burning down. The only indication of fire in WTC7 is by way of seeing what is apparent in the flames from broken windows, whatever is really going on inside the building is out of sight and therefore unknown.

Right! The perps knew just how those buildings would react to jet-fuel laden passenger liners plowing into 1WTC between the 93rd and 99th floors and 2WTC between the 77th and 85th floors. What I can't figure is how they knew exactly where those planes would hit or how the demo charges survived hours of uncontrolled fires but then 9/11 "truthers" never really apply their cynicism to any of the non-official theories.

 

[SAYIT]

The 9-11 conspiracy relies on the theory that Americans helped the jihad maniacs bring down the WTC buildings but aside from junk science nothing makes sense. Why would they do it? Why didn't they follow up with whatever political or military agenda they had in mind? How could they mine the WTC with explosives and rely on split second timing with a bunch of suicidal jihad maniacs? How could the Clinton administration be involved? Where was the 4th plane headed and is the target still mined with explosives? Go back to crop circles.

The "truther" reality goes like this: Bush needed justification to go after Saddam so he took out the WTC, ripped Afghanistan a new one and proceeded to trash Iraq. Of course, all he really needed to do was taint an Iraqi building with that which the UN was actively seeking - evidence of WMDs - but then reality always seems to leave the CTs with nothing to dream about.

 

[n0spam4me]

so, does anyone actually buy it, that is the excuse that WTC7 fell as it did, because for 8 stories of structure, the resistance was uniformly removed because of "columns buckling and losing their capacity to support" and this was the result of chaotic fires & damage to the south side of the building caused by rubble thrown off by the collapsing towers.
(?) The NIST offers up lame excuses!

To address the fires bit, have you ever been to an amusement park where there is supposed to be a building being consumed by fire, but its all effects, yes, there are flames & heat, but its all controlled and there is no danger of anything actually burning down. The only indication of fire in WTC7 is by way of seeing what is apparent in the flames from broken windows, whatever is really going on inside the building is out of sight and therefore unknown.

Right! The perps knew just how those buildings would react to jet-fuel laden passenger liners plowing into 1WTC between the 93rd and 99th floors and 2WTC between the 77th and 85th floors. What I can't figure is how they knew exactly where those planes would hit or how the demo charges survived hours of uncontrolled fires but then 9/11 "truthers" never really apply their cynicism to any of the non-official theories.

news flash 4 U
there were no airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001

 

[n0spam4me]

so, does anyone actually buy it, that is the excuse that WTC7 fell as it did, because for 8 stories of structure, the resistance was uniformly removed because of "columns buckling and losing their capacity to support" and this was the result of chaotic fires & damage to the south side of the building caused by rubble thrown off by the collapsing towers.
(?) The NIST offers up lame excuses!

To address the fires bit, have you ever been to an amusement park where there is supposed to be a building being consumed by fire, but its all effects, yes, there are flames & heat, but its all controlled and there is no danger of anything actually burning down. The only indication of fire in WTC7 is by way of seeing what is apparent in the flames from broken windows, whatever is really going on inside the building is out of sight and therefore unknown.

Right! The perps knew just how those buildings would react to jet-fuel laden passenger liners plowing into 1WTC between the 93rd and 99th floors and 2WTC between the 77th and 85th floors. What I can't figure is how they knew exactly where those planes would hit or how the demo charges survived hours of uncontrolled fires but then 9/11 "truthers" never really apply their cynicism to any of the non-official theories.

To address speculation as to what the hijackers may or may not have known, what info, what high quality espionage did they have to know for certain that the airliner would penetrate & not bounce off the wall(s) of the WTC & Pentagon? Riddle me that ........

 

[SAYIT]

so, does anyone actually buy it, that is the excuse that WTC7 fell as it did, because for 8 stories of structure, the resistance was uniformly removed because of "columns buckling and losing their capacity to support" and this was the result of chaotic fires & damage to the south side of the building caused by rubble thrown off by the collapsing towers.
(?) The NIST offers up lame excuses!

To address the fires bit, have you ever been to an amusement park where there is supposed to be a building being consumed by fire, but its all effects, yes, there are flames & heat, but its all controlled and there is no danger of anything actually burning down. The only indication of fire in WTC7 is by way of seeing what is apparent in the flames from broken windows, whatever is really going on inside the building is out of sight and therefore unknown.

Right! The perps knew just how those buildings would react to jet-fuel laden passenger liners plowing into 1WTC between the 93rd and 99th floors and 2WTC between the 77th and 85th floors. What I can't figure is how they knew exactly where those planes would hit or how the demo charges survived hours of uncontrolled fires but then 9/11 "truthers" never really apply their cynicism to any of the non-official theories.

To address speculation as to what the hijackers may or may not have known, what info, what high quality espionage did they have to know for certain that the airliner would penetrate & not bounce off the wall(s) of the WTC & Pentagon? Riddle me that ........

Deflection. Clearly the perps to which I sarcastically referred were those you believe planned and executed a controlled demo on 9/11.
It doesn't matter what the hijackers knew about how effective their attack would be but rather what they believed and by admitting they were the perps on 9/11 the rest of your silly controlled demo CT goes where it belongs ... in the trash.