Just Wondering...

This may be important.

www.youtube.com...

www.liveleak.com...


Google : "Levant Map"



Just look who proffitted from 9/11.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: skyeagle409



And please somebody, anybody tell me why this isn't to be
entered in as evidence against the OS. This has got to be
the only piece of evidence I would ever need to prove the
opposition will lie and photoshop and manipulate and conjure
anything and everything they possibly can. All to maintain
their superficial plastic little worlds. Pathetically!

What a G-D joke.

Another photo of steel columns that have buckled under compression due to fire.




Has this been photoshoped too ?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Rocker2013

Just using the word beams proves my point esse.
And you only think it's been debunked.

Vertical beams Oho hahaha heee

You might want to look at the video again. It's the roof of the hanger that collapsed silly.

a reply to: randyvs

That was in response to Truther claims that fire cannot weaken steel to the point of collapse, which it did and I posted the Kader Toy Factory and the hangar as proof that fire can weaken steel to the point of collapse.

In Madrid, Spain, the outer steel frame of the Windsor building collapsed due to fire.

a reply to: waypastvne

You do realize there is much more to the OP than steel beams and airplanes? Try working on other aspects.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I bet the building did not collapse free fall and turn to a pile a dust with projectiles flying out from the core. Give it a rest, you will not find one single example of any buildings falling like these 3 did in the history of mankind, NONE, without the use of a controlled demolition.

Now, find something else to chew on.

a reply to: randyvs

The thing is, that proves exactly what I been telling him the whole time. He just has no idea what he's talking about.
He need s to dismiss himself from the argument cause, he's only hurting his cause.

From my experience working with aerospace metals, including steel, I knew that what you were posting was false and that you were not knowledgeable about iron nor steel.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

I bet the building did not collapse free fall and turn to a pile a dust with projectiles flying out from the core.

Considering that debris and dust plumes were outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings, it was obvious they did not collapse at free fall speed.

Give it a rest, you will not find one single example of any buildings falling like these 3 did in the history of mankind, NONE, without the use of a controlled demolition.

Let's take a look to see just how wrong you are and please explain to us from this video how these buildings were demolished and collapsed without explosives.

www.youtube.com...

lin.contrailscience.com...

Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building

Total collapse of 21-story steel frame office building. Note building standing in background. Many tall concrete structures whose designs met the requirements of the building code performed well.

www.johnmartin.com...

In other words, you are 100% wrong because you are unaware of the rest of the story and the reason is, you failed to do homework, which is typical of the Truth Movement and why it has made itself a laughing stock.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Tale a look at this video that you somehow missed before to see how wrong you are.


Video of WTC Buldings Not Collapsing at Free Fall Speed

www.youtube.com...=164

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Well, your thickly layered dismissive remarks are appreciated by me, if not the MODERATORS as insulting.

As a member of this class pissed on by you, "ignorant, arrogant idiots (ie. 95% of 'truthers'), I find you and those who believe in the official reports to be wrapped in a cocoon of your (PUT A LOT OF REALLY FOUL LANGUAGE HERE).

Just so you know, you (FOUL WORDS AGAIN)s, are not as smart as the people who actually see through the conspiracy and also are a detriment to human evolution.

You received an education from an accredited Institution.(Maybe) As many of us have learned, who have also done so, your education will never make you smart or innovative. By now you know this and have settled into the groove of least resistance. A blank cartridge loaded with a brain made from a sewing needle. It makes noise but never music.

If you have decided that we who are conspiratists on this issue are not worthy, then go the hell away. There must be some place for you to gather your thoughts before you bury them for the winter.

Moderators, If you decide this is too testy. Please remove. However, if this asshat has the privilege to insult and it is denied to the responders that seems unfair. Removing both would strike me as reasonable compromise.

a reply to: skyeagle409
I do not recall who said that it was AT free fall accelerations when the towers dropped. It is actually NEAR free fall accelerations.
The point is there was far too little resistance holding up the fall for buildings constructed like these.

Also you can never explain the collapse of the third skyscraper.

a reply to: largo

I do not recall who said that it was AT free fall accelerations when the towers dropped. It is actually NEAR free fall accelerations.

Not even near free fall speed. Collapse times for each building.

WTC 1 = 22.02 seconds

WTC 2 = 15.28 seconds

WTC 7 = 17 seconds

The point is there was far too little resistance holding up the fall for buildings constructed like these.

This photo shows that there was much resistance to the collapse.

contrailscience.com...

Also you can never explain the collapse of the third skyscraper.

It is easy to explain. First of all, there was a 20-story hole that was punched out from the collapse of WTC 1 and the fires raged unchecked. The massive hole on the south facade of WTC 7 explains why in the final two seconds, WTC 7 leaned toward the south due to the massive damage suffered to its supporting structure.

I might add that buckling was seen on a corner of WTC 7 before it collapse which is another indication that fire was slowly weakening its internal steel structure.

Take a look at these photos of WTC 7 before it collapsed.

Photo 1

debunking911.com...

Photo 2

WTC 7 tilting toward the south

debunking911.com...

debunking911.com...

debunking911.com...

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: skyeagle409
It is actually NEAR free fall accelerations.

The buildings collapsed at around 68% of free fall acceleration . 68% is closer to 50% than it to 100% therefor:

It is actually NEAR 1/2 free fall acceleration.

:would be the correct sentence to use.

a reply to: waypastvne

The collapse times for each of the WTC buildings show there was resistance in the manner found during Verinage demolition operations, which does not used explosives.

Verinage Video

www.youtube.com...

Facts about the WTC collapse.

Video

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Rocker2013


You say the design was flawed? Fine, you are wrong.

These seemingly impregnable behemoths, he told me, went down quickly because they lacked the cagelike internal steel-frame structure typical of tall buildings and were supported instead by metal load-bearing outer walls that hastened the collapse once they were breached.

This reasonable explanation, which I unquestioningly disseminated, turned out to be the exact opposite of the truth and is corrected, along with a number of other erroneous received ideas, by the authors of this absorbing and disturbing book.
...
It was, in fact, the towers' innovative external engineering that redistributed the walls' structural forces around the gaping holes after the attacks and kept the buildings standing long enough for a vast majority of their occupants to escape. Despite the ghastly death toll, the high survival rate for those in the towers below the impact points of the hijacked jets was no less than a miracle. Had the towers possessed conventional steel skeletons, they would have probably snapped and immediately fallen over, causing more catastrophic collateral damage than they did by crumpling onto their footprints.

www.nytimes.com...

Next assumption to debunk, please!

Yes. We saw some kind of explosion and lots of other people did so as well. Not one of the witnesses was mentioned in the Nist-report, how comes that? Oh... fires. Of course, let's forget evidence-based science then and deny some ... ignorance?

Guys, its just trolling at this point. Every single claim by these guys has been debunked over and over and over. The fact that they can continue to argue against it all is just so indicative of the whole truther group. In the absence of any proof and basing all claims on psuedo science we will prevail. Drones.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I heard no explosions that can be attributed to explosives, which explains why no explosions were detected by seismic monitors in the area and of course, why demolition experts in the area working on another project who have stated that they heard no demolition explosions.

Not one shred of demolition hardware was ever found within the rubble at ground zero, which underlines the fact no explosives were used. In addition, it would have been impossible to rig the WTC buildings with explosives effectively in a crowded building.

It would have taken many months just to pre-weaken the structures and that is a very dirty and noisy process that would not have gone unnoticed. The fact that the 1993 WTC 1 bombing failed to bring down that building is an example that explosives alone could not have brought down the WTC builidngs.

Add to the fact that the collapse of the WTC Towers began where they were struck by the aircraft and nowhere else, which underlines the fact that there were no demolition explosives planted because there were no secondary explosions.

a reply to: In4ormant

A good reason why the 9/11 Truth Movement has made itself look clownish is because they have been posting disinformation that was planted to discredit the movement and accepting silly claims from Steven Jones, Richard Gage, individuals who have been caught lying, and websites such as Loose Change and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Check it out.

Disinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth”

The claim that a missile destroyed the Pentagon lives on, probably the first major 9/11 disinformation coup, and it has long been cited by international corporate media as a sure indicator of mental illness or stupidity. You can point at 42 Pentagon witnesses who saw a plane, noting that zero eyewitnesses ever reported a missile, but, in a self-reinforcing religious mind wash, contrary evidence is handily dismissed. The messenger is bludgeoned.

A steaming case of a “honey pot” trap, this Pentagon/missile theory originated from a website that called itself “Silent But Deadly,” hosted in France starting in June of 2003 (Warning: link to disinformation website). This missile theory popped up nearly two years after the actual 9/11 attacks and after a Congressional investigation needed to be censored by the White House, in order to protect their Saudi friends and possible co-conspirators.

www.911truth.org...

I have gone head-to-head with Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, because I caught him and his group deliberately posting disinformation, so I challenged him with my experience as a pilot and airframe technician of over 40 years. His website is another prime example of how easy truthers have been duped with disinformation and misinformation.