Found it! Audio from 9/11. you hear explosions

[baxter]

I didnt think of that :x. But can somebody please tell me the difference between WTC 1 , 2 and 7?

This is WTC 7

Basically the theory goes that this building along with Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Despite no evidence at all and despite the fact there would have to be the most awesome cover-up ever, people stick doggedly to this belief.

This building collapsed several hours after the towers in the full glare of the worlds press. Yet not one of the theorists can offer up anything remotely close to conclusive prove it was brought down by explosives...ask them to produce the audio files of this " controlled demolition ", they can't.

Simple.... explosives produce loud bangs, none was recorded when this building fell, hence no explosives.

 

[Sulkdodds]

That video's just silly anyway. Hmm, some booomy sounds that could be explosions (in such a situation they could be practically anything) with a huge delay between the sounds and the collapse. Hmmmmmmmmm.

 

[ríomhaire]

What you all fail to adresse is WHY blow up WTC7?

And how hard would it be to keep everything undercover? This would involve a LOT of people to cover it up.

To have an exuse to invade the middle east of course. I don't believe any of that though.

 

[Qonfused]

I cant understand how such a strong building that was custom-created with the intention of surviving attacks like 9/11 could fall down.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/mdf50834.jpg

I was looking at some pictures. Look how huge that explosion is. Oh, it doesn't look that big? Look at the scale of it... 1368 feet tall. The average jet flys at about 500 MPH, and I wouldn't doubt the terrorists were pushing it more.

So, take the weight (I couldn't find it on Google, meh), speed and jet fuel into consideration. What would't fall down after such an impact?

Plus, I wouldn't think that architechs would build a tower that huge with the thought: "Hmm, we should build this so it'll survive the impact of a commercial jet."

 

[lister]

"...one of the explosions at the World Trade Center ... may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so [the police] fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area."

 

[Mechagodzilla]

This therory makes some kind of anti-sense previously thought to be impossible under conventional measurements of stupidity.

What in the name of Chocolate Jimmy does anyone gain from secretly blowing up an empty and fairly unimportant building?

 

[kaf11]

Here's a conspiracy AMERICA IS RUN BY BY AN ELITE GROUP OF UNDERCOVER ASSHOLES!

Undercover?

No, they're easy to find.

 

[baxter]

baxter it's funny how even after i said i dont believe this theory you STILL go on to quote my post and dexcribe to me how im wrong. Some people never learn... People who automatically accept what the gov't says, and people who automatically jump to a conspiracy as the answer to an event are both wrong. Just like political parties, the far right and the far left are both nutjob extremists. The only safe place is right in the middle, soaking up a little of both sides then determining for your self what the true answer is.

I didn't describe how wrong you were I described how the conspirators were wrong to offset their views against people who don't believe them, including categorising people into paranoia.

There is nothing paranoid about believing the official version of events, even if this version is flawed and incomplete.

9/11 was a defining moment and has shaped world events ever since. It was dreadful and tragic and is one topic that I feel strongly about; especially when conspirators try to turn it into a circus and by their opinions and views try to undermine it.

Many people on this board dislike Bush and co, but to simply jump on any opportunity to discredit this administration, no matter how ludicrous or outrageous these opportunities are, simply makes fools of people.

I’m sure there is much more to 9/11 than we know and given time hopefully the full truth will come out.

The sad fact is the more people clamber on this US led conspiracy, the more the genuine facts will be obscured.

Equally so there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the US were involved in this, other than simply getting caught with there pants down.

 

[clarky003]

of course theres no evidence the US where involved in it, again who's seriously implying that here, but then you cant discount the possibilty that you somehow may have corporate criminal's in the highest position's of government (whats the saying.. nice guys finish last). If there are other explosions as there appears to be you have to try not to jump ahead of yourself and start with question's such as why werent these anaylised by the intial commission report?, why wasnt building 7 even included in the commission report? why did silversteen say he asked them to 'pull it' (implying the building not pulling people out) when the fires didnt seem extensive atall,, why was the comission report more like an omission rather than a thorough anaylisis of the event's that should give a multiple of possible scenario's leading to the collapses?, and then use those scenario's within the context of historical reference and similar event's to find consistencies and the possible cause's of the unknown's.

and yes those buildings where insured for a cool $7 billion, because of the two plane attack silversteen was hoping for the full amount because of the two occurances, the federal court disputed the argument and he got half the amount, although nothing is specifically said about the insurance on building 7. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/09/AP_OOF260903.html

 

[ríomhaire]

Didn't they ask for double the insurance because it was two planes?

 

[clarky003]

correct

Howard J. Rubenstein, a spokesman for Silverstein, acknowledged in a statement that Silverstein had hoped the appeals court would rule that there were two occurrences.

I was looking at some pictures. Look how huge that explosion is. Oh, it doesn't look that big? Look at the scale of it... 1368 feet tall. The average jet flys at about 500 MPH, and I wouldn't doubt the terrorists were pushing it more.

So, take the weight (I couldn't find it on Google, meh), speed and jet fuel into consideration. What would't fall down after such an impact?

Plus, I wouldn't think that architechs would build a tower that huge with the thought: "Hmm, we should build this so it'll survive the impact of a commercial jet."

It seems simple with a glance and a reference to the origional explaination doesnt it, plane hits building, building fall down. All steel support structures would need to simultaneously buckle on both tower's symmetrically all the way down to enable the buildings to land in their own footprint. On record the explaination for this is burning jet fuel caused both collapses needed to weaken the lower support structure below the impact area, and the top acted as a hammer as it fell, even though it clearly disintigrates before it properly begins to fall, and infact the building disintigrates all the way down freefalling with little - no resistance, and the commission report recognises that the impact's alone would not cause the collapse witnessed.

But no fire burning at even the tempratures suggested by the comission report (800 C) has ever in history weakened a steel structured skyscraper enough to bring it down, even over periods of 8 - 12 hour's (hotel windsor , spain), visibly there are no 'intense inferno's' as suggested in the comission report (they just assumed this), instead ... black smoke of a starved fire and some survivors standing in and around the impact holes, nearly the whole content's of second planes jet fuel is ejected out of the side of the building and with both you can see a majority is used up in the impact fireball's, theres some disturbing footage on record that shows extra explosion's and people jumping out of tower one several seconds before the second plane hits the other tower.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Riiiight, so the entire 9/11 tragedy and the subsequent wars were pre-planned because a guy collected insurance money from an insurance company.

Brilliant, bravo. You're geniuses, all of you.

 

[baxter]

of course theres no evidence the US where involved in it, again who's seriously implying that here,

You are.....

why werent these anaylised by the intial commission report?

why wasnt building 7 even included in the commission report?

why was the comission report more like an omission rather than a thorough anaylisis of the event's that should give a multiple of possible scenario's leading to the collapses?,

See this is the underlining problem with any theory that questions the official version. For any of these conspiracies to hold any weight whatsoever there has to be Government involvement.

You could choose to believe they masterminded, planned and executed the entire affair, turned a blind eye, or simply got it all wrong, whichever way you cut it, all conspiracies regarding 9/11 lead back to the US government.

This is simply where they all fall down; there is no logic, reason or even mileage in these theories unless they can offer up anything other than speculation and wild accusations.

You can sift though all the files, facts and footage of this dreadful day you want, analyse it until you are blue in the face. Come up with the most reasonable and logical explanation to substantiate these theories but you will never get away from the one central issue. That being if there is a conspiracy, somebody planned, initiated and over saw it.

Of course it is now reasonable and logical to assume that the very people who planned it, suppressed the 9/11 commission are also the very people who are hiding the truth from us all………..isn’t it?

 

[clarky003]

Im not talking about conspiracies or substanciating them your getting ahead of whats important to people, whats important to the majority in New York, why do you keep bringing it up anyway, im talking about those underlying question's and answering them, tell them why, give them some solid proof and the conspiracies will begin to filter away.

Riiiight, so the entire 9/11 tragedy and the subsequent wars were pre-planned because a guy collected insurance money from an insurance company.

Brilliant, bravo. You're geniuses, all of you.

well considering you didnt even seem to realise you got insurance from a destroyed building or infact perhaps anything with alot of value, id have to say genius on your part.

 

[ríomhaire]

Riiiight, so the entire 9/11 tragedy and the subsequent wars were pre-planned because a guy collected insurance money from an insurance company.

Brilliant, bravo. You're geniuses, all of you.

And to invade the Middle East and secure the oil and building contracts for rich businesses one of which George W Bush Seniour has shares in. I got a conspiracy encyclapidia for Christmas

 

[Sprite]

I'm undecided over 9/11 theories... I am very open minded but at the same time not a gullible idiot but some things just don't add up.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7.html

 

[Mechagodzilla]

well considering you didnt even seem to realise you got insurance from a destroyed building or infact perhaps anything with alot of value, id have to say genius on your part.

I dismissed that possibility outright because the insurance theory is retarded.

You're claiming it's an international conspiracy based around making a not-so-quick buck, but I effectively disproved that in the last brain-hurtingly dumb 9/11 conspiracy thread.
Essentially, the many thousands of people undertaking this 'conspiracy' would be commiting multiple mass murder and a precisely executed and expensive decade-long plan.
And you're claiming this all happened so that they could maybe possibly gain a paltry sum of money.

The fact that you consider that a plausible motive (while I did not) effectively underlines my point.

Again, that point is that these conspiracy theories are utterly moronic.

 

[clarky003]

Of course your right mech , the body of lacking evidence is meaningless to you, but not to everyone.

but anyway for anyone who isnt too sure like myself and likes a good read, here's a reference and commentary to the key point's in NIST's report, what they include and what they dont include etc.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#history

 

[Mechagodzilla]

of course your right mech , the body of lacking evidence is meaningless to you, but not to everyone.

Oh god the internet is telling me what to believe.
I had better accept their jpeg files and flash animations over common sense and scientific logic!

Let's pry a hole in reality and then fill that gap with a big hearty bowl of stupid.
There's no missing evidence, there's a whole lot of pseudo-scientific layman's sites that you're fellating with your eyes closed.

Shine on, you crazy diamond!


Am I wrong?

Then prove it by providing a complete and plausible explanation for this flawlessly executed ten-thousand man multi-million dollar international conspiracy.
Not just quotes from internet sites about how Alien Abe Lincon launched solar flares at the pentagon.

 

[clarky003]

Are you dense.. im not trying to justify any conspiracey, Im talking about the question's the New York people feel they need answer's too. You just seem to be making every post an attempt to put us not so sure people on the back foot, to make you seem sane and us seem crazy, just because some of us dont entirely believe with good reason that the wonderful US government has investigated thouroughly enough and is telling the whole truth about the event's.

You cant help but miss the gleaming error's biased assumption's and odd scientific hickups in NIST's report, they didnt even bother to factor in thermal conduction, so quit being such a trolling busy body, tonnes of people feel this way and we are aloud to do so it doesnt make us crazy... although you sound like your going crazy with your solar flare shooting abe lincon's.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

So the US is withholding the evidence that the towers were blown up by government explosives, but it's not a conspiracy?

Face facts clarky. You can't just make constant stupid conspiracy theories and then say you're not a stupid conspiracy theorist.

 

[clarky003]

Looking for unanswered question's and more thourough explaination's is not a conspiracey theory, im not going that far.. although you keep trying to move the topic onto that.. thats where an actual conspiracey theory draws the line, read the dictionary lol.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

con·spir·a·cy: noun
An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

lol?

By claiming the towers were intentionally blown up by george bush for insurance money, you're making a conspiracy theory.
Face it, clarky. Admitting it is the first step!

 

[Sprite]

To be fair, he suggested nothing of the sort. He said there are unanswered questions. And there are, you can't deny that.

 

[baxter]

Im not talking about conspiracies or substanciating them your getting ahead of whats important to people, whats important to the majority in New York, why do you keep bringing it up anyway, im talking about those underlying question's and answering them, tell them why, give them some solid proof and the conspiracies will begin to filter away.

Solid proof of what?

Solid proof that the 9/11 commission is flawed? Solid proof that the intelligence services failed to do their job?

You keep labouring the fact there is no conspiracy, it's not about conspiracies.....well what is it about?

Unanswered questions you will reply, of course there are unanswered questions, of course people got things wrong, people are fallible they make mistakes, this does not mean it is done through sinner motives. It simply means "hey we got it wrong, hey maybe we should do better next time".

If you was to really crank your brain into over drive, doubtless you could come up with thousands more questions, but that is all they are....questions, unanswered, that maybe one day will be answered.

No amount of questioning, analysing, probing will ever alter what happened. New light may be thrown on the areas you seem to think are important but if you realistically think that when these questions are answered satisfaction will be there, you are mistaken.

Simply put the answers you seek will never deliver the mind blowing revelations that the conspirators require because there is no conspiracy.

So the conspiracies will keep coming whether you want them to or not. Whether you wish it or not, theories like this are conspiracy theories and unless proven otherwise will remain so. To prove there is any substance to them at all much much more is needed that a few unanswered questions and certainly much more than a few dodgy links and video footage

 

[clarky003]

To be fair, he suggested nothing of the sort. He said there are unanswered questions. And there are, you can't deny that.

some people just cant tell the difference regardless of weither they have the dictionary meaning in their own post.

I wont admit it because I dont know.. which is exactley why it bugs me and hell of alot of people, reading through that NIST analysis its just astounding at how unthorough it is within the context of the most important question's.

I mean its example's of inconsistencies like this for instance , included in the FEMA report.. but not in NIST's,

The ASCE's Disclosures of Steel Sulfidation
One of the more interesting parts of FEMA's report is Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination in which the investigators revealed that examination of the macro- and micro-structure of specimens of the steel show that it was rapidly corroded by sulfidation. Appendix C concludes with:

'The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. ... A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

The authors don't speculate on whether the findings are evidence of explosives, but the New York Times called them "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

Despite the ASCE's call for further investigation, NIST's Report ignores the findings. Its five pages in Section 6.4 Learning from the Recovered Steel (p 86/136) includes a subsection on damage analysis with considerable detail, including some "observations of the microstructure of the steel." It fails to mention the sulfidation discovered by ASCE volunteers.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Oh poor clarky.

There are only two possibilities here.

1 - Planes hit the towers with extreme force, causing collapse.

2 - Planes hit the towers with extreme force and the collapse happened as a result of a mysterious enemy force that no-one knows about and the planes had nothing to do with the collapse.

1 is what normal people think.

2 is a conspiracy theory.

Which one do you believe?

You can't just pose constant questions in a vacuum.
Obviously you have made a conclusion. At the very least, it is the conclusion that point 1 is false.
Therefore, you must believe in point 2.

THERE IS NO THIRD OPTION, UNDERSTAND?

Your neutrality is a facade. That is what i have been trying to show you.

 

[Raziaar]

I just watched the video. Without reading the rest of the thread, let me just say that this video does not illustrate your point at all! I've watched other footage of the WTC, not a couple hundred feet from the base of the towers. How come I never heard these explosions in those?

Also... If you notice the time the explosions come in. The dust at the bottom of the tower has already BEEN there long before they happened. LONG before. Just look at your video footage. The thickness and volume of the dust does not change during the explosions, which would most definitely happen in the event of an explosion. No dark, plumes of smoke are seen either from the base of the tower which would happen in an explosion.

I can't help but think these videos were purely fabricated.

 

[clarky003]

No my neutrality is not a facade, although perhaps you would like it to be. Again you are trying to invoke others to develop the conversation into conspiracey theory talk again, and im not going to do that, you or nobody can dictate to a person what the truth is, irrelevant of the sources that the theory you percieve to be real propagates itself through, the origional 'theory' of events given by NIST is a highly coincidential sequence of event's (preimpact and especially post impact) that is incomplete by their own admittance and ignore's valid physical evidence and inpropautionates the event's taking place failing to address key observational evidence within know historical context and consistancies .

The Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:

The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.

NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, except for its vague rehash of the pile-driver theory. This is indefensible, given NIST's charge to investigate the collapses. Accepting that claim requires us to believe:

That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.
That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions. In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:

Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetricaly in all directions.
Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.
Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.

and seeing how the NIST report and FEMA fail to address this, then many people who want better answer's have no reason to be as clear as you happen to be about the validity of the intial claims, just because perhaps mine and other peoples view's of the world are different and possibly less idealistic.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Wow...I can't believe your actually trying to argue that. So basically because the collapse of the trade towers is similar to a controlled demolition means we ignore the facts and say it must have been a controlled demolition? No

How many steel structures have been hit with planes this size full of jet fuel? Mind you that jet fuel did burn and go down the elevators...yep to the very bottom floors below ground level. Hmm...perhaps that is what caused gases to come out from below ground level?

Also mind you that because something has similarities to something does not mean it is that. We have facts that the towers were collapsed by the planes. Physics and everything else agrees. There is a whole lot more data supporting these than any of your conspiracy theories.

Mind you they are and will continue to be called conspiracy theories because they have no solid data proving them. They only use un answered questions and other holes to add their own story to the mix. Give it up these theories are just dumb and not well thought out.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Okay, i'll agree with you in this post for the sake of making a point.
Terrorists hit the building and it fell down, but the minor details are strange according to internet.
You're absolutely right.

Now:

Who cares?

If the collapse was a result of terrorism, just as everyone knows it is, then do the exact physical properties of each beam really matter when, in the end, you're just saying the same story we've already heard but with slightly different words?

Goldilocks sat down and ate the porridge with a spoon.
Goldilocks sat down and ate the porridge with a spork.

Wow, the difference between spoon and spork is SO IMPORTANT.
There are QUESTIONS that need to be ANSWERED!
Spork? Spoon?

According to "Internet Conspiracy Website" it was likely a spork based on the specific cutlery clink recorded in one audio document.
As you can see from the blurry jpeg, the object fits a spork's characteristic tines.
I MUST POST THIS SORTA POSSIBLE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND ESSENTIALLY UNIMPORTANT INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET!! TO THE CLARKYMOBILE!

It's trivial pursuit. As long as it's goldilocks and she ate the porridge, does the lack of information concerning the spoon/spork really matter at all?


As you can see from this theoretical example, even if i did respect your quest for the truth, it's still nonsensical.
Please keep in mind, though, that I still have very little respect for you at all.

Again, there are only two options: you accept that terrorists knocked the towers down, or you're a conspiracy theorist.

Think clarky! Which one are you?

THINK.

THINK.

 

[clarky003]

No Im not saying that atall Glirk, lol. your jumping ahead again .. the evidence is that visual evidence contains all listed demolition characteristic's but it is not even remotely considered, nor anylised by NIST or FEMA, when the intial cause suggested is even more presumtious and theortetical because it's claiming a sequence of events it cant physically quantify.

They cant see or affirm the intense fires, they have no evidence,

they cannot affirm a partial collapse will lead to total collapse postulating a theory that cannot be physcially confirmed with no evidence of the fire strength or the likely hood of it spreading symmetrically and stupid mistakes like not factoring in thermal conduction of the whole structure.. etc, making it impossible to know yet thats where they pay the most attention to 'speculation'. whereas the biggest tell tail characteristic of all is the physically observable collapse itself which they pay little/no attention to.

therefore their failiure to address other possible scenario's and demolition characteristic similarities is not objective, and makes the report mostly omissive in its conclusion.

edit: and its okay i dont want your respect it has no value to me.

 

[Raziaar]

No Im not saying that atall Glirk, lol. jumping ahead again I see.. the evidence is that they contain demolition characteristic's but it is not considered, nor anylised by NIST or FEMA, when the intial cause suggested is even more presumtious and theortetical because it's claiming a sequence of events it cant quantify.

They cant see or affirm the intense fires, they have no evidence,

they cannot affirm a partial collapse will lead to total collapse postulating a theory that cannot be physcially confirmed, making it impossible to know.

therefore there failiure to address other possible scenario's demolition characteristic similarities is not objective, and makes the report mostly omissive in its conclusion.

You still haven't responded to my post. I'd like for you to.

 

[baxter]

you or nobody can dictate to a person what the truth is, irrelevant of the sources that the theory you percieve to be real propagates itself through

Actually the same could be said of you. You are in no position to tell anybody what is and isn't true.
Body swerving simple questions does nothing to further your cause or come anywhere near addressing simple questions put to you or anybody who supports this.
Simply putting forward what you see as the truth and then throwing questions at people who have the audacity question it is no way forward.

I have posted this link before, you ignored it before and no doubt will ignore it again as it simply doesn't fit into your view or version of events. Have a read, it's quite interesting and partially answers all your questions.

Incidentally I opt of option 1

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down

 

[Glirk Dient]

No Im not saying that atall Glirk, lol. your jumping ahead again .. the evidence is that they contain's all listed demolition characteristic's but it is not even remotely considered, nor anylised by NIST or FEMA, when the intial cause suggested is even more presumtious and theortetical because it's claiming a sequence of events it cant quantify.

They cant see or affirm the intense fires, they have no evidence,

they cannot affirm a partial collapse will lead to total collapse postulating a theory that cannot be physcially confirmed with no evidence of the fire strength, making it impossible to know, whereas the biggest tell tail characteristic of all is the physically observable collapse itself which they pay little/no attention to.

therefore there failiure to address other possible scenario's demolition characteristic similarities is not objective, and makes the report mostly omissive in its conclusion.

They looked at the data. They made a conclusion based on the massive amounts of data.

Plane crashes into building
building catches fire...jet fuel everywhere even going down elevators.
Steel melts, structure weakens and floor gives way, floors below that cannot handle the shock stress from the above collapse and that one collapses and it starts a giant chain reaction.

There was no data to suggest anything else. Mind you if they used controlled explosives those sure as hell would have been visible to everyone in there. Also to suggest someone wanted to murder thousands of people for a political agenda is really mad especially when there is no evidence only holes where you add your own conclusions.

It just doesn't hold up...that is why it is a theory and not a fact. What actually happened is completely possible and physics and chemistry back all of that up. That is why it happened...to suggest it was some giant cover up to murder thousands for a political agenda is just silly.

 

[clarky003]

Im not suggesting what your suggesting again lol and not saying this is true im mearly looking at the more phyisical evidence and noteing it's characteristic's are spot on with demolition.. is there a problem in seeing that possibility? everyone obviously has one because they are rushing ahead considering the meaning if that where true, and thats not what its all about at the moment because there hasnt been a proper investigation into it yet.

That mass of data surely looked impressive, but it was all assumption's guess's to see how the model's would behave, but the real idiot nonsensical icing on the cake was they didnt even construct or extend any model's to try and simulate/recreate the witnessed collapse's, they went as far as modelling fire coverage on the upper floor's .. no real conclusion was drawn from it and they stopped there, read it yourself.

But anyway we could go round in circles all day, lets let other people comment if they want too.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Come now Clarky! Option one or option two?

Was it planes?
or
Was it not?

It's a bafflingly simple question that you have failed to answer every single time.

 

[baxter]

Im not suggesting what your suggesting again lol, that mass of data surely looked impressive, but it was all assumption's guess's to see how the model's would behave, but they didnt even construct any model's to try and simulate the identical collapse, they went as far as modelling fire coverage on the upper floor's .. no real conclusion was drawn from it, read it yourself.

Didn't read it did you ?

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web.5–8

 

[clarky003]

Come now Clarky! Option one or option two?

Was it planes?
or
Was it not?

It's a bafflingly simple question that you have failed to answer every single time.

It was planes only until further investigation can possibly atleast be given the chance to clear up otherwise.

Thats called cornering someone sir, because there are only two possible outcomes , conspiracey ... and you faffing off about how crazy they are because you are a human physcological know all god or something, and in your view infalable large media network 'told you so' backboard.

I cant give a straight answer because I dont know simple as that, and thats all its ever been from the start, your treating like a competition or something:upstare: .

and I have read it, and seen the model's and that quote doesnt do anything to conclude those physical model's in the time line.

This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire

and there is no evidence for outrageous claims like this considering the visual evidence on hand.

 

[DreadLord]

I don't believe in any of the conspiracy theories.. But I do find them interesting.