Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

kirovman said:
If the government had masterminded it it would have taken years of forward planning and why weren't there any whistleblowers?

All the planning would have to come together to produce the most brilliantly diabolic evil plan the world has ever know.
Now compare that to the government who doesn't seem to know their heads from their arse.

I think... they had the motive and possibly the immorality to do it...but I don't think they had the capability, in respect to secrecy.
Click to expand...
They pulled it off, but the problem is the fact that many people have noticed what they did... and thats how stupid the government was they couldn't entirely cove themselves up.
 
Mech your not adding anything constructive to the discussion of the theory's or the purpose of the thread so I suggest you stop posting if your not going to.

This is a strong analysis of the origional theory, and thats what it is, an analysis' through indepth study of the footage and event's, and known repeatable evidence of steel building fires through history (and after the events) temprature's, actual structural information and forces that would of been envolved.

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

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

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

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/index.html
 
Raziaar said:
Well... here's a piece of advise... if you want to take this conspiracy theory, and run with it... please, do so. It won't take you anywhere in life.
Click to expand...

To each his own. One man's indifference is another man's aspiration.
 
Pauly said:
They pulled it off, but the problem is the fact that many people have noticed what they did... and thats how stupid the government was they couldn't entirely cove themselves up.
Click to expand...
you do realize that conspiracies are incredibly difficult to pull off and there haven;t been that many in history because of how hard they are?

i should've brought tin foil to this thread
 
Pauly said:
They pulled it off, but the problem is the fact that many people have noticed what they did... and thats how stupid the government was they couldn't entirely cove themselves up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess if you were trying to cover up the most brilliantly diabolical evil plan the world has ever known (TM), you'd look pretty stupid too.

I'm not really that convinced...maybe there is a conspiracy! But if there is, I doubt it's the one detailed here. There's a lot of demolitians/construction experts etc who have been over this... this is only one guy. Where are the other experts on this matter? For example, Kim Jong-Il's construction experts? I bet he'd love something like this.
 
Icarusintel said:
you do realize that conspiracies are incredibly difficult to pull off and there haven;t been that many in history because of how hard they are?

i should've brought tin foil to this thread
Click to expand...
I don't think we know how many succesful secret conspiracies there have been...
 
Teleporting allied cruisers, natch.
 
Icarusintel said:
you do realize that conspiracies are incredibly difficult to pull off and there haven;t been that many in history because of how hard they are?

i should've brought tin foil to this thread
Click to expand...
Huh? you just contradicted yourself. We wouldn't know if there were any perfectly successfull conspiracies because a conspiracy is a coverup... your not suppose to know anything about it, if you do, then it was not successfull.
 
kirovman said:
There's a lot of demolitians/construction experts etc who have been over this... this is only one guy. Where are the other experts on this matter? For example, Kim Jong-Il's construction experts? I bet he'd love something like this.
Click to expand...

People like this ?

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
Click to expand...
 
Didn't you know? Popular Mechanics is a tool of The Man!
 
I have a theory that all conspiracy theories are invented by the government to distract us from the truth.

spookymooky said:
I don't think we know how many succesful secret conspiracies there have been...
Click to expand...

Oh my word. That's a point. Think about it, people - if there was a conspiracy, we wouldn't know about it. Yeah. Heavy shit. :eek:
 
Its been revealed that there was a drill on 911 about the planesflying into the twin towers, this was used as a reason to tell NORAD to stand down - "Its only a drill, stand down." Ill find the source later.
 
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,"
Click to expand...

thats rather odd, again if you look at WTC 7 and the WTC 1 and 2 holes in the gravity freefall theory, it doesnt add up, the amount of dust caused isnt consistant with how a free fall collapse should work, it suggest's the majority of the concrete disintigrated into dust, not mentioning in the unzipping theory that the steel support's where bolted to the concrete, the official model doesnt even include the concrete fill! in their unzipping theory, how can it uzip so easily with a ridged body of bolted concrete fill, along with welded and bolted steel paneling unifying all support beams.

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

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

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

the speed of the fall isnt consistant with a free fall collapse

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

the top of the building doesnt behave as it would in a free fall collapse

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

thousands of joints ripped from the welding, steel shatter's and fly's sidewards hundreds of feet out of the foot print defying any kind of freefall theory.

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

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

Infact there are too many holes in the origional theory to even begin to wildly state that theres no scientific basis for demolition.. infact its the other way round, theres no scientific basis to assume that jet fuel could even weaken steel support beams by half enough through the entire structure (which would be required) for it to collapse in that fashion, and even then why was material blown hundreds of feet outside of the buildings free fall fooprint in just a second of the start of the collapse, expelled air through compression and displacement cannot explain the force required, nor the amount of fine debris generated.

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

The fire's where not strong enough from physical evidence, the visible fires burned a red orange flame, characterisitic of a cooler flame, fires died out completely in the south tower even in the most oxygenated perimeter area's, and there was no evidence that the core had extensive fires burning around it, there is infact opposite evidence.. that the temprature wasnt anywhere near unbearable to the fire fighters who reached the 78th floor, let alone steel. Burning fuel in such a short period of time alone cannot explain the molten piles of metal in the basement level surviving weeks after the collapse, much hotter unverified forces where at work.
 
Solaris said:
Its been revealed that there was a drill on 911 about the planesflying into the twin towers, this was used as a reason to tell NORAD to stand down - "Its only a drill, stand down." Ill find the source later.
Click to expand...

Try this source

CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
Click to expand...
 
Infact there are too many holes in the origional theory to even begin to wildly state that theres no scientific basis for demolition.. infact its the other way round, theres no scientific basis to assume that jet fuel could even weaken steel support beams enough through the entire structure (which would be required) for it to collapse in that fashion, and even then why was material blown hundreds of feet outside of the buildings free fall fooprint in just a few seconds of the start of the collapse, expelled air through compression cannot explain the force required, nor the amount of fine debris generated
Click to expand...


Source


CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Click to expand...

CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse
Click to expand...

PM consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Source
 
they just had to lose some of their structural strength
Click to expand...

Steel buildings are made to take upto 5 times the load of their design (where do they mention that? do they think we are dumb?), they are purposely over engineered, this statement is skirting the issue of structural integrity simulation's . Their statment does not explain how all load bearing column's could of simultaniously reached the same temprature required to collapse in that fashion, or even how the whole unaffected load not included in the fire collapse in a similar fashion. That quoted comment does not answer my quote.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research.
Click to expand...

NIST's final conclusion is derived on computer model's simulating certain situation's non of their computer models modelled the cause for the collapse or tried to repeat the collapse with a fire model, just predcitions of fire spread throughout the building (I hope including this is what they mean by extra research), limited depth of research, failure to consider other possibilities, failure to answer adequetly any of the question's brought up against steel buildings free fall collapsing by fire (the only 3 cases in history, WTC 1, 2 and 7). It is totally inadequet


along with the building's unusual construction
Click to expand...

everything else is pep talk , it boils down to that quote, it suggest's new evidence they dont want to disclose if their not outright lieing anyway.

Someone tell me what do they mean by this? that is far from satisfactory, plans to the buildings are now classified, why was it unusual? how did that help fire melt the structure enough for it to fall like it a classical demolishion?.

in this case they are simply 'assuming' rather than investigating

its abismal.

If they are facts.. those are omissive fact's, not investigation fact's. Which should not make them 100% respectable.

Again the origional theory is a conspiracey theory, and a 1000 men could of been envolved in the NIST final omission for all anyone cares. but their assumtion's have physical evidence that directly opposes their theory.
 
Is there any evidence showing that it wasn't a demolition that you would accept?

Personally, I'd take computer models (flawed though they may be) over vague statements along the lines of "it looks like it was demolished"
 
Perhaps you would, but considering all 3 of these buildings in the same period of time simultaniously became the sole historical event of steel building's free fall collapsing due to fire, should be plenty enough to get anyone scratching their head aside from the official story.

The evidence that would definitively prove no explosives where used in any of the building's would require a forensic test, which is now impossible due to the incompetance of the people who ordered the site cleaned before it could be conducted. All we can go by evidentially are the video's and experiances and the vaste majority indicate further explosion's, in the basement's, and behavioural simularities with demolishion, and physical inconsistancies,

So you could convince me if you could somehow prove that that jet fuel, and fire can cause 3 individual cases in of free fall collapse in the same period of time where the characteristic's are only historically associated with proffessional demolition.

Personally computer model's are no match against real life footage, but these computer models dont even attempt to replicate the event's, NIST only produce the predicition models for the spread of fire over the floor plan of the hit zone, to gather the most realisitic looking model, to this day thats as far as its gone.

The second building to be hit collapsed first, and the aircraft didnt hit anywhere near the centre. Infact, it almost missed and almost all the jet fuel was ejected outside in the fireball, From this it is sensible to say what fires there where, where more than likely away from the core, also visibly dieing out first no more than 10 minutes after the impact.

The precisely vertical collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001, necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as fires or explosions, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.

Moreover, it is a fact that fire has never caused any steel frame high-rise building to collapse in any manner, let alone with the vertical precision of Building 7's destruction

Despite the inescapable logic of the above, the official theory for the collapse, as published in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report goes as follows:

At 9:59 AM (after the South Tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off.
Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves.
Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)
This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.)
The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite.
The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7. .
Click to expand...

The last point is the greatest stretch, since it asks us to believe that an event that would be expected only to cause the sagging of a floor instead led not only to total collapse, but to such a tidy collapse that directly adjacent buildings were scarcely even damaged. This is surprising behavior for a steel frame skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes.

After laying out this highly improbable scenario, the FEMA report authors conclude:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

Unfortunately for investigators hoping to resolve this issue, nearly all of the evidence had already been destroyed by the time the FEMA report was published.

Documents Destroyed
At the time of its destruction, Building 7 housed documents relating to numerous SEC investigations. The files for approximately three to four thousand cases were destroyed, according to the Los Angeles Times. Among the destroyed documents were ones that may have demonstrated the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy.
Click to expand...



"Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building" pictures of the intial fires in the building on the north face reveal no external damage. this is a lie.

"Due to a design flaw", what design flaw? what was wrong with the building that had been standing for 30 odd years without past mention? would this of happened in the new york black out aswell?.

The owner , silversteen.. contradict's the official statement's,
" they agreed to pull it "
Click to expand...
implying controlled demolishion.

NIST's and FEMA's consideration's dont compliment historical reference, nor do they explain how simultanious failure by fire can happen, or cause such a spectacle, NIST's explaination is wholefully inadequet.

I tend to favour logic.
 
Is there any evidence showing that it wasn't a demolition that you would accept?
Click to expand...

Their minds can't be changed... there's a loop flaw.

Start:
MATCH CONSPIRACY Disaster Strikes
MATCH START Nothing Happens
PUT idle
MATCHWAIT

Conspiracy:
MATCH START Government admits to bogus claims
MATCH CONSPIRACY Bogus claims thoroughly debunked
PUT rant about bogus conspiracies perpetrated by the government
MATCHWAIT
 
dont drag this thread down please, Pi is trying to take it seriously, keep it sensible you media peons :p
 
While the conspiracy theories are not flawless, they can't be proven to be completely wrong either. Seriously, I don't really think the US goverment would have taken down two of the most important buildings with explosives, to "authorize" a war. Still, the conspiracy theories are interesting to read.
 
It's logical to anaylise the difficult question's that havnt been answered, here is a good example of why alot of people perhaps still cant even come to terms with asking those question's.

Maximized Psychological Impact

The many facts and myths of the 9-11 attack had the quality of a movie script. These range from timing and selection of targets to the many unverified details related by the media. For example.

The date, 9-11, mimics the emergency response number 911.
The targets were three of the largest, most unique, and most famous buildings in the world; with special meaning for Americans. The Twin Towers and the Pentagon were symbols of American economic and military might.
Several memorable sentences attributed to players in the drama filled out the human side of the story.
The ominous overheard boast of the hijackers of Flight 11: "We have more planes."
The heartstring-pulling last words of Madeline Sweeney: "I see buildings, water ... Oh my God!"
The rallying cry of the heroes of Flight 93: "Let's roll."
The attacks on New York City made for spectacular footage. The duel aircraft impacts insured that the cameras would be rolling for the second impact, whose off-centered impact produced particularly impressive fireballs.
People jumping to their deaths from 100 stories, a predictable consequence of the North Tower impact, left an unforgettable poignant image of the victims' plight.
Each installment in the unfolding story was more incredible than the last. As people were reeling from the inconceivable attack on the Pentagon, the culminating shockers of the skyscraper collapses started.
The huge dust clouds of the exploding South Tower made people run for their very lives, ever so reminiscent of volcano disaster movies.
The snuffing out of the lives hundreds of firefighters left Americans with numerous genuine heroes.
The "crash" of Flight 93 left its target a matter of speculation, letting people imagine scenarios like a smoking hole in place of the Capitol dome, with hundreds of senators and representatives dead.

Could people's conditioning to suspend disbelief when watching disaster movies be a factor in their unwillingness to confront such oddities of 9-11 as: the unexplained collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7; or the suspension of standard operating procedures, which would normally have protected New York City and Washington from such an attack?
Click to expand...

every factual anomalie is listed here.. http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html, read it if you want a more balanced insight.

People in the towers at the time of the impacts reported sways of several feet, but the deflection was not large enough to be noticeable in any of the video footage. The sways were less than the towers experienced in winter storms.
The North Tower impact destroyed from 31 to 36 of the 240 perimeter columns (according to FEMA) and an unknown number of core columns.
The South Tower impact destroyed about 23 of the 240 perimeter columns, and probably did not damage many of the core columns. The impact hole indicates that the fuselage entered on the right end of the middle third of the southwest wall, and videos show it exiting the east corner. That implies that the plane's trajectory through the building caused the fuselage to almost entirely miss the core structure. The fact there was a passable stairwell in the core after the crash also suggests there was minimal structural damage.
Click to expand...

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

Gravity-Collapse Explanations
Defenders of the gravity collapse theory consistently invoke the explanation that the ejections of dust are caused by pancaking floors squeezing out air and dust. The Popular Mechanics article attacking 9/11 Truth contains the following passage.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

There are several problems with this explanation, which we designate the piston theory.

The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.
The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concerete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.
The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs.
The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory, which would similar pressures across each floor and to successive floors.
The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we see no evidnece of dust being sucked back into the tower.
Click to expand...

for people who really have no idea about a squib's characteristic's http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html
 
So can you tell me why you pin the government as the culprit rather than terrorists still... even if squibs and stuff were actually there?
 
huh, oh trying to catch me out i see .. Ive only stated that its a possibility that it could of been an inside job, I dont profess to know. Im trying to be logical about it and there are historical event's which do lend credance to that idea.
ie.

http://911review.com/precedent/century/reichstag.html

http://911review.com/precedent/century/pearlharbor.html

http://911review.com/precedent/century/tonkin.html

and if you study the motive.

The official legend of the 9/11/01 attack is rather sparse on motive. Muslim extremists attacked the United States "because they hate our freedoms". This was the only motive articulated by the Bush Administration, but more rational motives were available to consumers of print media: perhaps Osama wanted to punish the United States for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps he wanted to provoke the United States into attacking Arab nations in order to recruit jihadists. But the issue of bin Laden's motive was never a big issue, since he had already been tried and convicted on TV on the day of the attack. All that was important is that he hated us, that lots of Arabs hated us, and that military action was required to stamp out the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

Now let's contrast the purely ideological motive ascribed to the elusive Osama bin Laden with the very tangible and material benefits that flowed to the people who actually had the means to execute the attack.

Rudolph Giuliani became an instant hero by immediately appearing for photo ops as the hands-on mayor at Ground Zero, and by taking command of the situation. He was exalted as Man of the Year by Time magazine while he managed the largest evidence destruction operation in history.

George W. Bush enjoyed an immediate surge in popularity and the burying of investigative reports on electoral fraud by his brother Jeb's Republican election machine in Florida. "United We Stand" slogans propagated across the nation as Bush boasted of "smoking out" the terrorists.

The new War on Terror would become the umbrella for whole new levels of pork, unaccountability, and corruption in the nexus of government and industry that would fight the war.

The weapons industries prepared for a new orgy of corporate welfare, as the Pentagon budget would be further bloated. Certainly we would need billion-dollar stealth bombers to smoke the elusive Osama bin Laden out of his cave.

Vice President Cheney's company, Halliburton, would soon be getting fat no-bid contracts to rebuild the infrastructure that American bombs would destroy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The owner of the World Trade Center complex would receive a $3.6 billion payout for the destruction of the seven buildings, and would seek a second payout on the basis that the attack was two "occurrences" (because there were two plane crashes). Silverstein Properties had just acquired a 99-year lease on the World
Trade Center, and a new insurance policy, in July of 2001. Silverstein would be ridded of those white elephants, the Twin Towers, with their obsolete office space and asbestos abatement problems.

The Project for a New American Century got the new Pearl Harbor that it said would be needed to rapidly achieve its goals.
Click to expand...
 
The many facts and myths of the 9-11 attack had the quality of a movie script. These range from timing and selection of targets to the many unverified details related by the media. For example.

The date, 9-11, mimics the emergency response number 911.
The targets were three of the largest, most unique, and most famous buildings in the world; with special meaning for Americans. The Twin Towers and the Pentagon were symbols of American economic and military might.
Several memorable sentences attributed to players in the drama filled out the human side of the story.
The ominous overheard boast of the hijackers of Flight 11: "We have more planes."
The heartstring-pulling last words of Madeline Sweeney: "I see buildings, water ... Oh my God!"
The rallying cry of the heroes of Flight 93: "Let's roll."
The attacks on New York City made for spectacular footage. The duel aircraft impacts insured that the cameras would be rolling for the second impact, whose off-centered impact produced particularly impressive fireballs.
People jumping to their deaths from 100 stories, a predictable consequence of the North Tower impact, left an unforgettable poignant image of the victims' plight.
Each installment in the unfolding story was more incredible than the last. As people were reeling from the inconceivable attack on the Pentagon, the culminating shockers of the skyscraper collapses started.
The huge dust clouds of the exploding South Tower made people run for their very lives, ever so reminiscent of volcano disaster movies.
The snuffing out of the lives hundreds of firefighters left Americans with numerous genuine heroes.
The "crash" of Flight 93 left its target a matter of speculation, letting people imagine scenarios like a smoking hole in place of the Capitol dome, with hundreds of senators and representatives dead.

Could people's conditioning to suspend disbelief when watching disaster movies be a factor in their unwillingness to confront such oddities of 9-11 as: the unexplained collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7; or the suspension of standard operating procedures, which would normally have protected New York City and Washington from such an attack?
Click to expand...

Sounds as though it was almost stage managed.
Guess some of the fire fighters on the ground forgot the part in the script about exploding buildings.

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

"Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they’re not trying to put this fire out?

At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we’ve got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that’s on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you’ve got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we’ve got to get those people out of there.

I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn’t want to get anybody trapped in the collapse"

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

"We had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then"

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/

I really don't know, believe what you will, but these guys never mention explosions and cleared the area because wtc7 was unstable.
 
WTC 7 was left to burn for roughly 7 hours after the explosion's and collapses

Whats even more odd, when you look at the footage and photo's of WTC 7 building earlier in the day, the fires where small enough and slow moving enough to be taken care of within plenty of time earlier in the day, but they where allowed to burn out of control, and somehow simultaniously managing to critically weaken all load bearing columns at the very same time for a uniform collapse, it is extraordinarly unlikely given all past examples of fire burning out of control in a steel building, It simply defies logic.

How did the chief know it was going to come down?, or was what he said mere after suggestion in the fact that he had already seen it come down. He doesnt comment on the way it came down and how relatively isolated fires managed to bring a steel building down for the 3rd time in history, the other two being WTC 1 and 2.

There isnt enough evidence to state it was brought down by fire, logic strongly opposes that conclusion. Its good that your atleast actually thinking about this.

http://batr.org/view/022805.html
 
Obviously Clarky has a PHD in 'Copy and Paste'.

Or at least some education, right?

I mean, you're not just taking this website at face value and parroting it back at us, are you?

You're claiming objectivity, but it's blindingly obvious that your meeting the webpage was love at first sight.
This isn't a logical weighing of the facts. It's adopting pseudoscience to the exclusion of actual rational thought.

Here's a real thought for you:

-The WTC7 falling down was essential to their plan of scaring america.
-No-one really cares about WTC7 even four years later.

So how exactly is this a brilliant plan that needed magic and mystery?

Oh, right. You don't need to explain it because you're only concerned with facts and not motivations.
Bullshit, man. If you were only concerned with facts, you wouldn't have posted that stupid 'Maximum Psychological Impact' crap which is PURE speculation.

"No one believes me, therefore the entire rest of the world is too brainwashed by movies to see my genius."

Get over yourself.

Also, no-one has disproven the DANGER MEMO or my undeniable ALIEN PROOFS.
 
Its good that your atleast actually thinking about this.
Click to expand...

You see, I find that extremely patronising. What you're saying is that once people start seeing aspects of your viewpoint, that they are then thinking about it. Which suggest that those opposing your point of view aren't thinking about it.
 
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
__________________


responses to debunk the debunkers :
I notice that Popular Mechanics claims that they had to search 4500 radar blips in order to find Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93, are they trying to say that the North American Aero Space Defense is completely useless? And couldn't ever find anything even if they tried because there are too many dots on there radar screens? All commercial and private jets are required to have a transponder which transmits a 4 digit code, this number is assigned to them by the FAA for each flight. It is said or at least made out by the US Government/Military that the hijackers turned off the transponders of the planes after a period of time, therefore it would be easy to find these planes, because they would be some of the only places on the radar that were not transmitting transponder codes.

------
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

RESPONSE on the logical side

First of all, if jet fuel did supposedly travel down the elevators (The engineers actually built the elevators so that fire couldn't travel down them) and crack open doors in the lobby and ignite, it would not significantly damage the building. A hydrocarbon fire igniting at best would be equal to a low power explosive. It is extremely unlikely that any of the jet fuel could of traveled down the elevator shafts then spilled onto multiple floors, then ignited and started a fire, no video or photographs shows this. Most Importantly there is no evidence that jet fuel traveled down any of the elevators, none of the footage shot by the Naudet brothers shows any soot, which would of been left if a fireball had exploded in the lobby. The only thing left in the lobby was white powder, which is a signature of explosives.




--------
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse


Reply: The claim that 25 % of the front of WTC 7 was scooped out, is a claim which has absolutely no evidence backing it. Tom Franklin a professional photographer took many photos of WTC 7 before it collapsed, none of them showed WTC 7 had 25 % of its face scooped out. What could possibly cause such a thing to happen anyway? Pulverized concrete? WTC 7 could not of suffered a progressive collapse, as the photo's show the buildings fires were not near the top of the building.

The fires in WTC 7 would of been considered moderate by any firefighter, so how could these fires cause a global collapse of a steel structure? Something which has never happened before in all of history. "Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or kinks" This is correct.

A kink like the above is something that is characteristic of a controlled demolition, the reason this happens is because the explosives near the inside of the building are detonated first so that the outer walls of the building will fall in, not out, so nearby buildings will not be damaged.

As you can see the walls did indeed fall in on themselves, anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.

Picture proof : http://911physics.atspace.com/wtc7-se.jpg
http://911physics.atspace.com/streamers.jpg
http://911physics.atspace.com/b7_3.jpg

--------------

PM consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Is that a joke?
response from a website
I wouldn't imagine that anyone ever would waste there time inviting over 300 "experts" in order to investigate a "conspiracy theory"!
Things Popular Mechanics Did NOT Address In There Article:

*Free Fall collapse of both WTC Towers.

*The Pulverization of the concrete from the WTC Towers.

*The molten pools of steel in the basement of the Towers [Source: Mark Loizeaux President of Controlled Demolition Incorporated.]

*The incredible temperature of the debris a week after the attack [Source: NASA Satellite Images]

*The fact that no steel structure in history has ever been destroyed by fire.

*The reports by the Fire Fighters that bombs were going off when they were inside the WTC Towers.

*The fact that Larry Silverstein said they "pulled" WTC 7 on PBS - America Rebuilds.





Thoughts from 911physics:
Much of what Popular Mechanics has said is incorrect, and some of it is an outright lie. It would be obvious this is an attempt of Government Propaganda. You may ask how could I say this is Government Propaganda, when Heart Publications isn't owned by the government? What most people do not know is that the owner of Hearst Publications, Ben Chertoff is the first cousin of the Direct of Home Land Security Michael Chertoff. This article Popular Mechanics has written may of actually done more damage than good (for the Criminals behind this massive scam.) The fact that they needed 300 supposedly experts to write a lousy article that attempted to attack the 9/11 Truth movement, may of actually caused some people to become curious and investigate the scam. This I believe is only a small example of the propaganda that is put out through the media around the world, it is very easy for the Government or who ever is behind this scam to fool people by putting out these "Facts" through the "Free Press". It is very Important that people understand that the media is used as a weapon to deceive us, when Adolph Hitler was making changes to Germany, one of the things he did was make sure he had control the media. Is it possible history is repeating itself?




Did they say anything about the pentagon in the article either?
















Ooh, and isn't it funny that the FBI never accused Bin laden of the attacks on 9-11? Bush convicted Osama, not the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm <---
 
I just do not understand what is happening here??

Highschool children continue to copy and paste from websites, yet I am not any closer to believing them over actual scientists???

How can this be?!

It is said or at least made out by the US Government/Military that the hijackers turned off the transponders of the planes after a period of time, therefore it would be easy to find these planes, because they would be some of the only places on the radar that were not transmitting transponder codes.
Click to expand...
Speculative. The guy has no clue how the machine works.

It is extremely unlikely that any of the jet fuel could of traveled down the elevator shafts then spilled onto multiple floors, then ignited and started a fire, no video or photographs shows this.
Click to expand...
Speculative, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Hell, everything the guy is saying is without evidence. He's acting as though the lack of evidence means he's right.

Like how he just doubts that there were 300 experts and then uses that baseless doubt as proof that the experts are fake?

Why on Earth would anyone believe this stupidity?
 
[rant] OK this is completely off topic but the lack of a basic grasp of English by some members of this board (who otherwise seem reasonably intelligent) is really starting to get on my nerves and doesn't exactly make reading some of these posts particularly easy. In fact i think i may have found a new pet-hate to rival the use of "loose" instead of "lose".

wtf am i on about? The use of "could of" / "would of" / "may of" instead of "could have" / "would have" / "may have"

I can't believe i've found myself bothered enough to take the time to post this but i'm actually starting to believe in another conspiracy..............to destroy the English language (possibly also lead by Clarky - j/k)!! [/rant]

Anyway, back on topic. This whole debate reminds me of an episode of Question Time (a current affairs programme on the BBC) a few weeks ago, in which a member of the audience vehemently claimed that the planes used to fly into the twin towers were actually military-owned air refuelling tankers modified to carry missiles and that just before impact you could see them launch missiles into the two towers. He also said that this was common knowledge and "all over the front pages of the newspapers" (presumably he was refering to the Fortean Times). Oh how i ROFL'd.

My point (finally) is that i personally find this thread's 'alternative theory' just as in-credible as this guy's. I obviously can't back that up with any hard facts (certainly none that would be readily accepted by proponents of this theory) because it's just a feeling based on my personal boundaries of what i consider plausible.

Final thought: Maybe it was scalar waves wot done it!!!
 
You know something you guys are right, I give up and admit defeat, and now believe it’s all one massive conspiracy, involving

Parts of, if not all the US Government,
NORAD.
FAA
The CIA
The FBI.
NASA.
Highly trained demolition experts.
Parts of, if not all the worlds media,
Larry Siversteein.
Ben Chertoff
Michael Cherloff
Popular mechanics.
Any other piece of evidence or scientific paper ever produced that doesn’t support these theories.
Highly trained fire fighters who didn’t notice the explosions.
The blokes who faked the Bin laden video confessions
The blokes who fired a missile at the pentagon.
Anybody who says it’s not a conspiracy.

Anybody I missed out, sorry, please kindly add yourself to this list, excuse me while I go and buy my tin foil.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
You see, I find that extremely patronising. What you're saying is that once people start seeing aspects of your viewpoint, that they are then thinking about it. Which suggest that those opposing your point of view aren't thinking about it.
Click to expand...

Well im sorry if you find it patronising, but not atall, Im merely hinting that alot of people's responses are void on the subject matter and are more often a personal attack on my own integrity, in baxter's case it was more obvious he had thought about it rather than just dismissing it, then offering material to the contrary.

Mech, the events do defy logic.. within the context of historical reference and physic's.. what is your problem? Ive read through the entirity of that site almost, and agree with it's focus on the unanswered question's and other theories using logical understand of the event's untainted as it was 4 years ago. You are trying to rubbish me because I copy and paste references based on logical analysis? like you assume I dont read, understand, or agree with it before hand.

Im not trying to convince 'you' Im posting what is a substancial body of evidence to suggest other event's took place, and your constant counter argument is not of any substance, you always end up attacking mine or pauly's personal integrity with the only reasoning being what was layed out by the bush administration, and comission report.

If you were only concerned with facts, you wouldn't have posted that stupid 'Maximum Psychological Impact' crap which is PURE speculation.
Click to expand...

no, its logically based on actual psychology and its influence, it is relevant to lend support to a number of facts that suggest other theories, and I was being polite answering what I think raziar said about not being able to think in the 'correct' manor,
Their minds can't be changed... there's a loop flaw.
Click to expand...

Hell, everything the guy is saying is without evidence.
Click to expand...

maybe in your opinion, but its not without logic. Anyway its the same for both theories, there is a lack of evidence for both, even more so for pancaking because you cant see or confirm the damage inside needed to properly back up any kind of unzipping, it relies on that one major assumtion of internal damage, not to mention the heavily flawed representation models behind the theory, all you have to do is look at the models to see how inaccurate they are in appearance and content! .. but logic, historical reference, physic's, and probability strongly favour demolishion, to this day no models of the collapse where simulated by fire or demolishion.

If a simulation was actually done you would beable to see which was more accurate to the real life collapses. but these government funded models havnt been made, doesnt anyone find that pathetic?

Bill clinton's stupid sex scandal had over 40 million spent on it, and its publicity

9/11 to this date has had less that 800,000 spent on investigating and publicising it, un fooking believable, and I think New yorkers would agree on that atleast.

Speculative, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Click to expand...

There is nothing speculative about the confiscated tapes around the pentagon,

There is nothing speculative about fires not being able to collapse steel building's in a free fall demolition fashion

There is nothing speculative about the absence of debris from the plane around the pentagon

There is nothing speculative about the inconsistancies of fuel burn evidence between the pentagon and the WTC building's.

There is nothing speculative about the destruction of evidence at ground zero before proper forensic analysis

There is nothing speculative about the similarties of the WTC collapses to controlled demolishion

There is nothing speculative about how FEMA have misrepresented the building's layout, and have confiscated blueprint's. (not even an investigative organisation)

There is nothing speculative about how the whitehouse environmental agencey witheld correct knowledge of the toxicity of the air after the event, announcing the air was safe to breath.

There is nothing speculative about the lack of hard evidence on the flight's and the stone wall experianced by investigator's when trying to find such material.

There is nothing speculative about the entire lack of hard evidence showing any suspected terrorist's getting on the planes when there are security camera's close to, or at all terminal's.

There is nothing speculative about the lack / confiscation of black box recorder's

There is nothing speculative about the missing Flight data recorders (FDRs)

There is nothing speculative about the missing Cockpit voice recorders (CVRs)

There is nothing speculative about the destruction of recording's and the witholding of forenamed recorded evidence ie, cell phones.
 
Clarky, when you are actually using proper sources I'll actually bother reading them. Sorry but that's the main problem, you're relying on hopelessly biased websites who's main purpose is to convince the reader that their views are right.
 
It seems a lot is missing.

How about audio?

See this is another problem I have with the demolition theory. You have argued that the wtc’s where brought down by controlled explosion.
On this I will again focus on WTC7.
According your sites this building was brought down by explosives. Now I am not explosives expert but I should imagine that to bring down a 47 story building you would need lots of explosives, probably tons.
Again I am not an explosives expert but I would have thought that tons of explosives going off would make lots of noise, i.e. boom, boom, and boom.
This building collapsed some 7 hours after WTC 1&2 collapsed.
The world’s media had descended on the area, there where probably hundreds, if not thousands of high quality video and audio devices all pointing in the general direction of the WTC, yet not one picked up the sound of tons of explosives going off.
Not one camera man whizzed his camera around as tons of explosives went off to capture the moment.
Not one reporter screamed into his mic that he heard explosions
This deafing roar was never captured and the collapse was only recorded by one or two cameras that was pointing in the general direction of WTC 7 at the time.

Basically explosives= very load bang=lots of noise.

So please produce any audio recording of the tons of explosives going off that brought down WTC 7 you can find.

No audio= no explosives.
 
They're super high tech explosions that emit no sound! The military discovered how to create it when working in the vaccum of space.:rolling:
 
Oh noes, they secretly wiped the sound of the explosion out of all audio recordings!

I agree with Badger - you're not going to get credibility when your sources are Conspiracy Theory websites.

-Angry Lawyer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top