[Antiloop33rpm]

lol, ok, then I guess several people all "shook" while simultaneously getting affraid strangely enough just before the tower collapsed (they must have known!) despite having a perfectly still shot for minutes on end.

Hundreds, if not thousands of people where filming those towers. It wouldnt be too hard to find a couple films that had that 'mysterious' shake too them.

 

[wonderboy905]

Hundreds, if not thousands of people where filming those towers. It wouldnt be too hard to find a couple films that had that 'mysterious' shake too them.

Imagine if every known shot that was on a tripod (not from across the river, and not that was confiscated, they couldn't get them all) happened to all have that same shake at the very same time that just so happens to coincide with a large spike in seismic activity and a loud audible rumbling? Coincidence?

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Coincidence?

Were they all at or near the same location? Was there activity such as heavy trucks? Industry? Seismic acitivty can be triggered by any number of events. Coincidence? No. Just another question not properly explored and instead used an excuse to make baseless assumptions.

 

[andreapalladio]

how can you explain that?

The floors started to pancake. They pushed the air down and out. How hard is that to figure out?

 

[afransen TO]

I think the skeptics here are sounding more unreasonable than wonder. Grasping at straws like several camera operators quivering at the same time?

Why is no one suspicious that video evidence is confiscated and then kept secret even 5 years later? I find that astoundingly suspicious.

 

[wonderboy905]

The floors started to pancake. They pushed the air down and out. How hard is that to figure out?

They pushed air down 50 stories below?

The floors pancaked? Can you please provide some evidence of this? Had the floors of pancaked there would not have been a sub 12 second collapse.

Although there's numerous sources with calculations disproving the pancake theory this sums it up as well as any:

In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

* The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
* On 9/11, energy was not conserved

However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC collapses fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults.

Taken from: 911blimp.com/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

Also see blog.abovetopsecret.com/wecomeinpeace/2006/06/911_disproving_the_wtc_pancake.html
for more in-depth calculation.

afransen TO, well said and thank you. Although you may not agree with me (really all I'm trying to say is that there is more than ample evidence for the media to ignore like they are - which means we'll never get a truly independant investigation) it's crazy to think the things people will just blatently ignore just because something challenges a set of events that have been spoon fed into their minds by our wonderful media. No one credible has been able to debunk Steven Jones work without leaving out huge segments of it (kind of like how the 9/11 commission forgot to mention that the WTC's had massive steel columns and completely left out the unexplainable collapse of WTC7 other than to admit that it could not be explained... all that time and money and they can't explain it???).

None of this adds up. Maybe if the government would release all the videos (I'd give my left eye to see all the pentagon videos being witheld) we can get some closure on the issue.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If memory serves me correctly, I heard the WTC was designed so that if anything like what happened happened, it would pancake on itself (as opposed to toppling over, to minimize collateral damage). Makes sense given the density of skyscrapers in Manhattan. The only problem is that they did seem to pancake a little too quickly.

 

[bizorky]

You are grossly overestimating the extent of the damage caused by the airplanes and the fires. Obviously anything in the way of the impact zones was whiped out, that's a given. If you learn about how buildings are demolished explosive charges are set throughout the entire structure, starting with the foundation (consistant with the eye witnesse accounts that the boiler rooms were blown up prior to the collapse of both towers). Explosives can be detonated via remote devices, there's no need to rely on the buildings power supply to set them off. Explosives would have to have been planted along the entire core (in order to acheive the perfect collapses that occured - buildings like these should fall to the side if they are resulting from a collapse with non-symmetrical damage), I fail to see how the airplanes would have whiped those out over a span of 100 or so floors. Charges are only needed every 20 or so floors,

I am grossly over-estimating the damage? I have to ask, but did you venture up there on that day to do an assessment of the damage? If you didn't then you don't know what the damage was. You have no evidence to support this assertion. None.

Again, you fail to indicate as to how explosive charges would have survived the damage caused by the impact of the aircraft.

Thousands of people worked in those buildings, and nobody noticed explosives being installed? Then you state that an eye witness saw the boiler room being detonated. That's convenient. There are eye witnesses for pretty much anything, aren't there? There are always eye witnesses who uphold their beliefs by reporting on sightings that match their paranoia, or their pet conspiracy theory. Police like eye witnesses, too, but are loath to depend on them because they are quite notorious for not being accurate, hence the need for verifiable, credible evidence beyond the eye witness.

 

[wonderboy905]

I am grossly over-estimating the damage? I have to ask, but did you venture up there on that day to do an assessment of the damage? If you didn't then you don't know what the damage was. You have no evidence to support this assertion. None.

How about a fire cheif advising that they could take the fires out with just 2 lines? How about all the black smoke? You do realize this signifies the end of the fire and that it has lost most of it's potential energy, within minutes the smoke turned black, the jet fuel clearly burned outside in plain view.

Again, you fail to indicate as to how explosive charges would have survived the damage caused by the impact of the aircraft.

Do you not read? I addressed this, this isn't even an issue. Skeptics of the explosion theory do not raise this point because it's nonsense. You're implying that in order for the buildings to be pulled the explosives located directly in the impact zones would have been critical to acheiving that. This couldn't be further from the truth, in order to acheive the symmetrical collapses we all saw the CORES would need to be taken out, and obviously more than the few floors covered by the plane impacts would need to have explosives planted. The very fact that you're again repeating this bizzare point is mind blowing.

Thousands of people worked in those buildings, and nobody noticed explosives being installed?

Multiple security shutdowns and blackouts for maintenance work during the months and weeks leading up to the attacks have been verified, something that has never happened ever at any of the towers in the WTC complex. Bomb sniffing dogs that were commonplace since the earlier truck bombings were removed 2 weeks leading up to the attacks. This is all verified (and stuff that I've mentioned).

Then you state that an eye witness saw the boiler room being detonated. That's convenient. There are eye witnesses for pretty much anything, aren't there? There are always eye witnesses who uphold their beliefs by reporting on sightings that match their paranoia, or their pet conspiracy theory. Police like eye witnesses, too, but are loath to depend on them because they are quite notorious for not being accurate, hence the need for verifiable, credible evidence beyond the eye witness.

Countless maintenance workers have stepped forward and reported this. How is it that BEFORE the collapses one worker was pulled out of the basement with most of his skin melted off? What about the story of William Rodriguez? Is he not credible? President Bush congratulated him personally for his heroics on 9/11. What about the firemen, police officers and media reporters all reporting countless explosions? Are they all planted eye witnesses too?

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4574366633014832928&q=9%2F11+bomb

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2032865563019209801&q=firefighters+september+11

Watch those videos (they're short) - those men lost more friends that day than any of us could imagine, what would they stand to gain by lying?

 

[bizorky]

So maybe the fire chief under-estimated the fires, did you consider that possibility?

Black smoke and the end of the fire? Do you know for sure? Do you have direct evidence? How long did that burn for? At what temperature did it burn? What damage was done to the building on the affected floors due to the impact, explosion and fire? Do you know? Do you have actual evidence that was collected in some way? I just hear a bunch of hypotheticals that lack consistent proof, both for the elaborate schemes to bring down the buildings and the tenuous link to some vast government conspiracy behind it.

So it does not matter that the supposed explosives planted in the building are destroyed? Why is it nonesense? Because you say so? Why should I believe you? What makes you or your sources more credible than the media you so disbelieve?

This couldn't be further from the truth, in order to acheive the symmetrical collapses we all saw the CORES would need to be taken out, and obviously more than the few floors covered by the plane impacts would need to have explosives planted. The very fact that you're again repeating this bizzare point is mind blowing.

You claim to know what the truth is and accuse me of blowing your mind? You claim to know what is further from the truth? What truth do you know? What evidence do you provide that is clear and consistent? Heresay? An eye witness here and there? Some quotes from secondary sources on metallurgy, building structure, fires and explosives? Security shut-downs must automatically mean explosives installation? What if they were just doing a security check?



You are a believer, not a skeptic. Not by a long shot. You have accepted your own beliefs as the truth (since you claim to know is furthest from it). It's not an issue of evidence, really, but one of psychology.

 

[wonderboy905]

Black smoke and the end of the fire? Do you know for sure? Do you have direct evidence? How long did that burn for? At what temperature did it burn? What damage was done to the building on the affected floors due to the impact, explosion and fire? Do you know? Do you have actual evidence that was collected in some way? I just hear a bunch of hypotheticals that lack consistent proof, both for the elaborate schemes to bring down the buildings and the tenuous link to some vast government conspiracy behind it.

I repeat, for the fifteenth time, read Steven Jones paper. He has covered your concerns quite well, I don't claim to be the one actually researching this, rather I have provided links with exhaustive and well-constructed scientically correct arguments which you refuse to look at.

So it does not matter that the supposed explosives planted in the building are destroyed? Why is it nonesense? Because you say so? Why should I believe you? What makes you or your sources more credible than the media you so disbelieve?

Unebeleivable that you would even bring up this absurd notion again. What about the staplers in the building? How could they find any staplers in the wreckage when surely all the staplers on ALL the floors must have been damaged when the airplanes struck!!! What percentage of the buildings were impacted by the impacts? At least on the outside it's clearly visible that 2-3% would be a good estimate, that would take out the explosives required to detonate the buildings? Again, there are some very well educated people that have tried to debunk the explosives theory yet to my knowledge no-one has ever raised this. This might be your claim to fame! Go for it, promote your idea that the planes must have destroyed all the explosives... It truly is mind boggling that you'd bring this up again, and again, I have attempted to back everything I have said up with quality sources (otherwise it's been so well documented that a quick google search will verify the facts). You on the other hand don't back anything up, I directly address all your issues and concerns, you seem to pick and choose what you respond to, and when you do you make it alarmingly clear that you're not paying attention to what's been posted previously. It's almost as if you're acting as a distraction to prevent any real exchange of ideas from taking place.

You claim to know what the truth is and accuse me of blowing your mind? You claim to know what is further from the truth? What truth do you know? What evidence do you provide that is clear and consistent? Heresay? An eye witness here and there? Some quotes from secondary sources on metallurgy, building structure, fires and explosives? Security shut-downs must automatically mean explosives installation? What if they were just doing a security check?

I'm sorry, I'm not a structural engineer, I'm not a physicist, and I wasn't there to witnesse it live in person. However, I suppose in order for you to pay attention I need to go obtain myself some PHD's and re-post everything. I have been presenting evidence from sources that I have found to be compelling in that it's scientifically accurate (which is why I lean more towards sources that are accomplished than work presented by amateur 9/11 researchers). You cannot deny the fact that pancake collapse is impossible and if you can you should try posting some credible evidence that states it can in fact happen in such a way that allows the tower (and its core) to crumble without encountering any resistance. NIST failed to re-create the collapse using models. The 911 ommission report left out or failed to explain an alarming number of issues (why did WTC7 collapse again?). Why is there so much evidence being kept from the public? Why was all the wreckage shipped out and melted down right away (a federal crime). Why do you insist on dismissing everything presented by those of very prominant positions (who stand nothing to gain) yet you support junk science explanations that aren't even plausible and refuse to provide any support for the official story of events? It's out there, it doesn't take much effort to debunk most of it, but... oh wait, maybe that's why you're shying away.

You are a believer, not a skeptic. Not by a long shot. You have accepted your own beliefs as the truth (since you claim to know is furthest from it). It's not an issue of evidence, really, but one of psychology.

One would assume the same of you. I understand and respect the fact that the majority of the people here disagree with the concept of 9/11 being an inside job, that's an extremely powerful accusation to make. Rather than take that angle if you focus purely on the facts and the science, there's a great argument to be made for explosives with more scientifically valid data and "coincidences" then the pancake theory or anything else the government funded investigations of discovered. I'd at least like to think that those who don't beleive would respect an honest attempt to share information and cite sources rather than openly ridicule someone without trying to refute the facts presented or at the very least, propose a compelling alternative theory.

Read Steven Jones article, that's all I ask. You don't have to, but the time you've wasted here could have been spent reading his article and then maybe you could have brought something interesting to the table. After all, I never claimed to be the one doing the actual research.

 

[andreapalladio]

It's completely un-credible. The Steven Jones paper has no basis in fact or science. It is the ravings of an hysterical madman.

 

[wonderboy905]

It's completely un-credible. The Steven Jones paper has no basis in fact or science. It is the ravings of an hysterical madman.

Are you bizorky? You've made a pretty strong statement here. Steven Jones is widely regarded as the father of cold fusion. He's had well over 40 papers published in very respected scientific journals and magazine. He's been the principle investigator for the department of energy. This is a man who know's the scientific method. This is a man who's credentials are unmatched by any member of FEMA, NIST or the official 9/11 Commission report, in fact you'd be hard pressed to find another physics professor who comes close to the accomplishments of this guy. His work on 9/11 has all gone through peer review and he is supported by other highly regarded professors (including several in Ontario) as well as experts in their various feilds (demoltion, structural engineering).

The fact that you would call him a hysterical madman without citing any references from his work isn't just a low blow, it's a demonstration of ignorance.

His hypothesis that thermite was used fits like a glove. The molten iron and steel found for weeks after the towers had collapsed (proven not to be aluminum from the airplanes), the impossibly quick symmetrical collapses of all 3 towers, traces of thermite found on WTC wreckage, proper data on melting/weakening properties of steel (unlike someone who posted in this thread earlier) has been provided & backed up.

Also unlike yourself, he is not demonstrating close minded view and really just wants what everybody who smells a rat wants, an open investigation, he notes that:

(No rebuttal of my argument can be complete, of course, unless it addresses all of these points.)

Which none of you have even come close to doing (or any respected scientist/researcher for that matter) and concludes with:

To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). Evidence relating to WTC 7 and its mysterious collapse must not be held back. In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered: all options will be on the table.

This is not someone who wraps himself up with tinfoil and puts a frying pan on their head, this is not someone pointing out the hundreds of flaws demonstrated by the US adminstration that day and isn't making this about the greatest security failure in US history (planes of course for 45 minutes at a time and no response? one that manages to hit the most gaurded building in the world while flying right through the most restricted air space in the world?). No, he doesn't point out the imposter Osama Bin Laden used in the tape the army just happened to find on a table in a house in Afghanistan or the fact that several politicians and prominant people included warnings not to fly that day or any number of things that just don't add up, no he does it with imperical data and scientific analysis of the collapses.

He must really be a hysterical madman.

 

[afransen TO]

lol

That's great, AP. Any specific critiques?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Steven Jones is widely regarded as the father of cold fusion.

LMAO! You made me spray coffee all over my keyboard...Will you cite an expert on parapsychology next?

The molten iron and steel found for weeks after the towers had collapsed (proven not to be aluminum from the airplanes)

Didn't you post earlier that the steel couldn't have melted? Would it be asking too much to have a consistent position?

traces of thermite found on WTC wreckage

You could find that anywhere. Thermit is rust and aluminum. It would be amazing if there weren't "traces of thermite" in the wreckage of a steel office building.

proper data on melting/weakening properties of steel (unlike someone who posted in this thread earlier) has been provided & backed up.

Actually, Jones' paper just had melting points. There's nothing in there on strength properties, and at what temperature the steel will weaken.

Kevin