9/11 Questions and ONE Single Answer... WE WILL NOT FORGET!

Originally posted by Alfie1
Congratulations on encapsulating just about every totally debunked bit of trutherism in one post. A useful reference.

Alftool, I love your posts bro. You never waste any time providing any convincing or relatively believable evidence or insight as so many other OS believers and truthers alike attempt to do. Instead, you just make broad statements that often defy reality as everyone else in this world knows it and top of each little mini seizure off with an insult. That last part is the icing on the cake that you do so much better than everyone else, that is why you are my fave!!

For sh*ts & giggles try debunking anything off of the list....well hell I'll pick something easy for ya instead. Debunk this please.



Its been fun, see you on the next thread buddy!

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by downisreallyup
If you have any other questions that you can add to the list I have started, please add them so that we can begin to see in one place just how large the list is, and why so many are having a hard time being TRUSTERS in the official story.

Interesting questions downisreally, here are some more.

www.tokyo.to...

Congratulations on encapsulating just about every totally debunked bit of trutherism in one post. A useful reference.

Then I suppose you can say which one of them are totally debunked?

Originally posted by 1SawSomeThings
reply to post by etcorngods

 

ET's communicate with man using words, numbers, dates, etc. The date 911/2001/AD converts to the word "Religion".
The 911 implosion was (is) a warning against Religion and the crooks on Wall Street.
I have worked with the ET's for 25 years on a daily basis.
---------
What a silly thing to say. Who do you think the "powers that be" are? How far did they go? The truthers use junk science to justify their statements. 911 was due to an act of GOD/ET/UFO -- that's the only explanation that makes any sense.

"Truthers use "junk science" to justify calling for a new 9/11 investigation???!!!
Since you attack in that way, may I bring up:
You bring nothing useful to the debate when you talk about "GOD/ET/UFO", along with your prior posts (contact w/ aliens etc.). In fact, you give MSM types like Beck (et al) the opportunity to attack 9/11 truth via setting the movement up for a Reductio Ad Absurdum propaganda attack, combined with "Guilt by Association". They read and report on what is said in various forums, including 9/11 truth being associated with Nazis and terrorists...You are helping them...
Please bring something useful to the debate.

Please debate the questions I have presented.

What is this, a Church? Is there a company line? I don't ascribe to it.

I am an expert in ET/UFO. The only explanation is that 911 was an Act of God.



[edit on 17-2-2010 by etcorngods]

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by downisreallyup
If you have any other questions that you can add to the list I have started, please add them so that we can begin to see in one place just how large the list is, and why so many are having a hard time being TRUSTERS in the official story.

Interesting questions downisreally, here are some more.

www.tokyo.to...

Congratulations on encapsulating just about every totally debunked bit of trutherism in one post. A useful reference.

Then I suppose you can say which one of them are totally debunked?

OK, can you please give some evidence for these:-

Explosion before WTC hit by Flight 175.

No windows in planes.

Pod

Massive additional explosion before collapse.

Flashes preceding final waves of collapse.

Falling faster than gravity ( my personal favourite )

WTC 7 collapsed suddenly.

Steel supports melted.

Bomb sniffing dogs removed.

Marvin Bush executive of firm providing security at the WTC at the time.

Hani Hanjour incapable of flying into Pentagon.

Hole in Pentagon too small.

Relevance of cell phone calls from UA 93 when all but 2 from airphones.

Hi-jackers alive.

Thanks

Why did the head of the FAA Security, who happened to be on duty that day, destroy the Radar records for the entire event by tearing it up and putting it in various trash cans and why was he allowed to say; "I don't know" and had to repercussions?

Why did we change to the religious fanatic meme and DROP the whole line of questioning regarding the main "alleged" hijacker's girlfriend in Miami?

Why was there no investigation in Jupiter Florida of the air strip where three of the hijackers trained after it was realized that it was a CIA "Air Drop" (meaning, where they have no inspections of what comes off planes)?

When the airplane of (was it flight 92?) allegedly struck the ground after a struggle in the cockpit -- how does that explain and engine found miles away -- was that a bounce?

The Flight Data recorder was missing the last two minutes -- after we spent a long time waiting for any releases. The problem is, either a flight data recorder is digital -- meaning everything would have been compromised, or it's on a magnetic tape. And the PROBLEM with the official story, is that these FDR's record from the OUTSIDE-IN, meaning the LAST bit of data is the most secure, and the FIRST two minutes would be getting overwritten or damaged with new data. So please explain…

Why was there no investigation into the alleged missing Gold Bullion (in the mega billions) from WTC 7 -- doesn't that mean the "crime scene" was not secured or was that only for reporters?

Why did the media never follow up on the Case files for ENRON, and the Bush families $17 Billion in fraudulent Federal Notes being destroyed by the building 7 collapse -- since these were both cases that seemed like they were going to go against the defendants -- is that not an interesting story?

Why was the FBI told NOT to follow up on the credit cards that linked the hijackers to rentals and follow that through the banking system?

Who exactly gave the order in Tora Bora for the Marines to back off and who arranged for the local fighters to try and procure Osama instead? Doesn't anyone in the military read about the culture of "protecting a guest with your life" and doesn't that mean that even though these guys might kill a girl for going to school -- the one thing they would honor is protecting the life of a "guest?"

Why was Pat Tillman's diary taken after the alleged "friendly fire" incident and other personal effects missing or destroyed, and why did it happen just two weeks before he was due to come back to the states -- isn't that convenient for a war hero who was going to bring up some uncomfortable questions about the war?

In the Moussoui case, the "flight manifest" was FAXed in as evidence. It was not admissible as evidence because of course, the court's don't accept FAXs for evidence of a document. Why was the "real" document never put forth and why was this never followed up since it is a very key piece of evidence? Really, it's hard for anyone to get on a plane without having a NAME, unless of course, someone is letting you onboard.

Why is there no followup of the CIA base/embassy in Saudi Arabia where a few of the hijackers allegedly got their passports? The "mistake" was shrugged off, and "better procedures" were promised, but these suspects were on a list -- isn't it kind of hard to believe they were part of a covert investigation if they are AT A CIA BASE getting a passport?

It might seem unrelated. But the Underwear Bomber incident was immediately followed by misinformation that was completely opposite the truth. If you are mistakenly NOT connecting dots -- then why would news reporters get told by an "inside source" that the suspect did not have a passport -- which is a hard thing not to have when getting on a plane, and why was so much of the story, completely wrong?

Why is the media not covering the case of the Fox News operatives who broke into a Senator's office, since she is the same lady who is heading the committee to investigate the "security mistake" with the Underwear Bomber?

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer about the reasons for stopping the State Department from taking the Underwear Bomber's passport -- if the CIA was actually following him as a suspect, why would they not at least let security know and check him for explosives before getting on the plane, since this is a normal procedure that other passengers go through -- isn't that a tip-off?

Why do we not know the name of whomever at the CIA told the State Department to let the bomber on the airplane?

Why is the media not following up that one of the Fox News "mischievous pranksters" who also made an Expose about ACORN, since it was found that this person was documented as having gone to school at a CIA training camp and strong ties with key NeoCon leaders like Newt Gingrich?

Shortly after admitting to the Lockerbie Airplane bombing, Kaddafi managed to get good trade relations and an end to the US embargo, with a lump some of some cash to the victims families. But the strange thing is; there was an entire delegation realizes they must urgently leave the plane; (sorry, I didn't spend much time on this one reading the link -- it's just a start about the connections and who was being targeted perhaps by the CIA); lockerbiecase.blogspot.com...
The question is -- there was an anonymous tip from an alleged CIA agent who claims to have planted the circuit board that PROVED the connection to Kaddaffi.

In December of 2001, John McCain went on the David Letterman show and talked about "4 top lab scientists at the Maryland Weapons Lab" who told him definitively that the Anthrax that was sent to two Democratic politicians who were key to blocking an invasion of Iraq by Al Qaeda. Since the "only suspect" committed suicide, after it was found that the Anthrax was FROM the exact same bio-weapons lab that McCain had mentioned -- shouldn't McCain be questioned about who these four "scientists" were McCain talked to, since such disinformation would probably link them to the "deceased suspect?"

I think I could go on for a bit with even more unexplained mysteries. We cannot forget, however, the FBI translator turned Whistle-blower Sibel Edumds, and the charity worker sent to spy in Iraq who learned too much, and was thrown in jail without charges and only released when Obama took office. Bye for now folks! Happy sleuthing....

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Originally posted by downisreallyup
If you have any other questions that you can add to the list I have started, please add them so that we can begin to see in one place just how large the list is, and why so many are having a hard time being TRUSTERS in the official story.

Interesting questions downisreally, here are some more.

www.tokyo.to...

Congratulations on encapsulating just about every totally debunked bit of trutherism in one post. A useful reference.

Then I suppose you can say which one of them are totally debunked?

OK, can you please give some evidence for these:-

Explosion before WTC hit by Flight 175.

You only need to google for some first responders finding pyroclastic dust and glass in the main lobby, and the Janitor who barely escaped with his life as he spoke about a horrendous explosion at the base of the building.

Also, firefighters in building 7 described a lot of rapid "popping sounds" -- and of course, the Believers said that was just light bulbs bursting from heat -- as if FireFighters haven't been in that situation before.

No windows in planes.

Personally, that one was pretty silly. There isn't good enough video to really tell -- but I'd say that planes struck the building.

Pod

About the same thing as the no-windows. In some videos, it does look like there was a bump on the plane -- but really, you can't see well enough, so it's pointless to debate that one -- I never bring it up.

Massive additional explosion before collapse.

As I've said before -- there are a few people who were eyewitnesses to some explosions at the base -- and there were police officers on the radio asking about why the lobby was so messed up. I'm not a fan of the "huge explosion" however - because if you are cutting the base with Thermate -- it's going to make SOME SOUND, but it burns super hot -- it's not really very explosive -- it certainly wouldn't be registering on a richter scale.

Flashes preceding final waves of collapse.

I see little spouts of smoke coming out about two floors down from the rolling collapse. Of course, maybe my eyes are past warranty, or my ears haven't heard news reporters tell me this is all silly, and my brain didn't recall them freaking out on the day of the attack saying it looked like a Demolition. The hasty and earnest recanting of so many who's first response was; "it looks like a demolition" -- it's just really freaky to me. The media and people around the water cooler, suddenly are so informed by experts about this pancake collapse thing -- and I'm still seeing a demolition -- it has never STOPPED looking like a demolition to me. I understand the theory about the pancake collapse and how the floors are hung like a bridge between the curtain wall and the inner core -- the "implosion" is like a cantilever effect of the top floor giving way as it's pins break -- the curtain wall would be pulled inward, acting with some leverage to pop more pins below.

That's kind of what I explained to my wife in 1999 when we were touring the WTC and she asked me about the first bombing. I said; "One way I could see this falling, is if a plane with a lot of fuel managed to take out two -- but likely THREE floors at one time. Despite the strength of the outer wall and the core -- the suspended floors are NOT supported so well, so a few of them slapping down could bring the rest. And I am not making that up -- I have a creative and devious mind.

However -- a pancake collapse probably would have taken about 60 seconds, because each floor has to HIT the one below and overwhelm it. You COULD have had some catastrophic failure however, as the outer curtain wall got "unzipped" because it's strength depends on being vertical, and being pulled INWARD -- they seem to go together like snap-on toys, so if the bend more than 30 or so degrees, they would just pull out.

But the BIG, huge problem with that -- is it leaves the core almost untouched -- it SHOULD have been mostly standing. The fact that the floors are falling -- or whatever THEORY about fire making a steel building collapse convinces the gullible -- we only have these three buildings to study this theory but all the materials were carted off and it was not treated as a crime scene. But the REALLY hard to get over thing; Buildings hold up the entire weight of the floors above -- it doesn't get HEAVIER because floors above have collapsed -- do you follow? Buildings are designed to hold TWICE their load -- so a 50% reduction in the steel strength wouldn't do it -- the WTC was designed with 3-4 times load capacity and WAS designed to be hit by airplanes full of fuel as I later read about the history of the planning. The curtain wall was designed like a screen door and flexes but can be broken in many places and still support the structure because it has more than one point of failure. The Empire State Building was hit shortly before the building was designed and the city wanted them to make damn sure a plane could not bring it down. And there was a fire that consumed two floors on the north tower before sprinklers were put in -- burnt for hours.

The bulk of the lower floors should ha also been intact because they were not designed with suspended floors so the pancake collapse would not be destroying them.

Oh, and what I didn't know in 1999 was that there are steel trusses between the floors holding them up as well. So likely the trusses were cut before the towers were hit -- just my opinion, I sure wish we could INVESTIGATE it.

The NIST says;
wtc.nist.gov...
"As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
"
>> Well I read that the STUDY, and the plans for the building were put by the Ports Authority building in WTC 7. So of course, NIST doesn't have a study. I'm sure a lot of stuff went missing BEFORE the attack.

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...
"
The gigantic dynamic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below is very much greater than the static load they were designed to resist.
"
>> But not immediately. The falling debris is mostly dust and it takes time to push the full load. The floors appeared to collapse with little to no resistance, and about 20 stories of the south tower appeared to crumble in mid-air. That seem strange.
>> The Twin Towers exploded outwards as far as 70 meters. I see in the VIDEO a huge cloud -- not a debris cloud pushed up by rushing air -- it looks pretty explosive to me. The jet fuel is burned up in the first 15 minutes after the crash - so what is that besides collapsing floors? I don't see how the downward force of gravity is having such a powerful vertical and lateral force that beams were found embedded in buildings half a mile a way. Maybe a few oddly placed beams might get struck with high force at the right angle -- but this is just a fire at this point -- the jet fuel isn't adding that much heat and the are is the size of a football field. Again, after it burnt out -- it's just an office fire. There have been many, many buildings that burnt for hours.
650 degree Celsius temperature of burning jet fuel is not hot enough -- and that's

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


TEMPERATURE. Heat load is why steel is so good at resisting fires -- it takes a lot of time to overload the steel, because it transfers heat to other steel throughout the building. Try heating up a wire, and see how hot the other end gets -- so it takes MORE than just reaching the melting point of steel in a fire -- and this didn't come close.
However, looking at that "yellow metal" that I can definitely see dripping down in some videos -- that has to be molten steel. About 2,000 - 2,300 degrees. It isn't aluminum - that turns white when melting. So if you know the metal, and you know the color, you know the heat. nyctohylophobia.blogspot.com...

Did you know that Rudy Guilianni got a $200,000 campaign donation to relocate the emergency headquarters INSIDE building 7? Why would someone think such a thing was so important, I wonder.

Falling faster than gravity ( my personal favourite )

Mine too. I look at the video, and I count somewhere around 8 seconds.
The WTC was 1,368 feet tall or 417 Meters -- though at another site, I read 1776.
Gravity "g" is around 9.82 m/s/s or (10 meters per second * per second) until it has enough time to reach "terminal" velocity and it goes no faster in free fall depending on wind resistance, if there were some added acceleration (like with a meteorite) it can go faster.
The formula is d = 0.5 g x t2

distance= 417 Meters.
time = let's say it was 12 seconds -- don't have time right now to look at the video, but it seemed like the floors were keeping up with the falling dust -- a big CLUE as to the free fall speed.
gravity = 9.82 *.5 = 4.91

So the Distance an object dropped with NO RESISTANCE would travel in 12 seconds, is 707.04 meters and the WTC is 417 Meters. The thing is, the building doesn't START with no resistance -- it's a building. So even if there is a demolition, there are a few seconds of "reaction time" before it STARTS free-falling.

It's pretty simple; look at the video. If you see the floors collapsing and keeping up with the falling debris just as I do (maybe beats it by 40 feet) -- then THAT is a free-fall collapse and it happens in about twice the time it takes to drop a stone when a building is imploded by a demolition crew.


By the way, don't quote the NIST report, when they first INFORMED everyone about the collapse of WTC 7 -- they said it took much longer than free-fall time. However, once a video was uncovered, they recanted and said they "mis-spoke" -- so, when you've got a BIG LIE -- then you don't get another in my book. There is enough compartmentalization and groupthink in some agencies to only hear from the TOP SPOKESMAN. You can have thousands of researchers -- but the only report is screened by the head honcho. If you let everyone just study one tiny facet and you control how the model is put together -- everybody is going to find that steel behaves like steel -- it's really how you put the model together -- and that person can make the data say what they want it to.
www.globalresearch.ca...

WTC 7 collapsed suddenly.

There was an hour or tow -- and then suddenly. This means nothing either way.

Steel supports melted.

I saw YELLOW metal dripping. NOT every bit of steel has to melt -- just enough to cut a slice.

Bomb sniffing dogs removed.

No idea about that.

Marvin Bush executive of firm providing security at the WTC at the time.

Hard to say who was connected to that firm. He was though, an officer at one time with the security firm, because I read some docs on in 2002 -- were they forged? Maybe. Who knows?

… no time for these -- I'm not a fan of them either.

Hi-jackers alive.

Yeah, about 6 guys from the countries quoted with the same names and appearance. Two are still flying in Egypt, by the way. Could be some other Egyptian pilots of the same name and look. Like that Bin Laden video that took credit -- didn't' look much like him, but that was PROOF baby!

Thanks

You are welcome.


>> I think I've gone over these points a couple dozen times. If there are only a dozen unexplained phenomena -- you can't go by all the nonsense that is debunked and say; "Look, this proves it's wrong." Because some fool said something, or a disinfo agent acts like a foolish truther -- that has no bearing.

It's all the other amazing coincidences and I listed about 50 on this page that are not explained. That tells me it is a conspiracy and someone in the administration COULD pull it off.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11.
But I refuse to believe that our gummint actually carried out the attacks.
So I guess I am not a truther per se.
What I do think is that there was probably a cover-up job by the gummint
after the fact. There are just too many inconsistencies and coincidences
IMO. We will never now the whole truth.
Just like the JFK assassination.

reply to post by downisreallyup

Originally posted by downisreallyup

At the top of page 4 of this thread I put together a fairly detailed post addressing the Pentagon's airspace. I think that people may have just glossed over that post, and yet it is one of the most informed posts in this thread. Please read that post and then address the issue of the 'no-fly-zone' in the DC area.

....

Based on the response of the person I was responding to, and the comments by Dereks, you would think the Pentagon had no prohibited airspace and no defenses whatsoever... nothing could be further from the truth!

Calm down my friend, I was not criticising you, I was actually kind of standing up for you, in a roundabout sort of way! I was merely pointing out to TwoPhish that your claim was hardly the most outlandish one made about 9/11! I have no real knowledge of the Pentagon's defences/no-fly zone and would not claim to know any better!

reply to post by budaruskie


I really don't see what there is to debunk in your Rumsfeld clip.

He is not much more articulate than his old boss but it is quite clear from the context, referring to the people who carried out the attacks in New York and the Pentagon, that he just means UA 93 was taken down violently. Only conspiracy theorists could make a big deal out of one word.

There is zero evidence of a shoot down. UA 93 was seen at low level in one piece. The CVR provides no evidence to support a shoot down. The FDR shows that all systems were functioning up to impact.

However, supposing it was shot down ; what would that prove ? that air defences worked a little better than we thought. Certainly doesn't prove a government conspiracy, rather the reverse. Also, why would the government deny it ? Wouldn't the vast majority of people accept it as a tragic necessity given the loss of life elsewhere and the fact that UA 93 was on course for Washington ?

reply to post by Noromyxo

A refusal to accept what contradicts one's belief is what this whole site is about,deny ignorance.Like (vise)President Cheney saying,"Blow a hole" in the pentagon.Another slip?Or a clue to a guilty 'mind',won't say conscience.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by budaruskie

 

I really don't see what there is to debunk in your Rumsfeld clip.

He is not much more articulate than his old boss but it is quite clear from the context, referring to the people who carried out the attacks in New York and the Pentagon, that he just means UA 93 was taken down violently. Only conspiracy theorists could make a big deal out of one word.

There is zero evidence of a shoot down. UA 93 was seen at low level in one piece. The CVR provides no evidence to support a shoot down. The FDR shows that all systems were functioning up to impact.

However, supposing it was shot down ; what would that prove ? that air defences worked a little better than we thought. Certainly doesn't prove a government conspiracy, rather the reverse. Also, why would the government deny it ? Wouldn't the vast majority of people accept it as a tragic necessity given the loss of life elsewhere and the fact that UA 93 was on course for Washington ?

Sorry... flight 93 landed at Cleveland and no amount of good-for-nothing-lying-disguising-itself-as-debunking will ever debunk that fact. Just as in the case with Roswell, if you EVER hear the truth about an event it will be in the first 24 hours. It will be told by the people who are merely doing their job to report the truth. Then, once the high-level handlers hear something that they want covered up, they will come in with a retraction or other form of cover-up.

Flight 93 landed at Cleveland along with another "mirrored flight" where it dispensed with all the 9/11 passengers.

Study the material on the following site addressing this very important topic... if you dare...

The Cleveland Airport Mystery - September 11th

Your crazy, insane, and 100% totally unbelievable "Shanksville" fabrication is a "truster" farce beyond farces, and any person would have to be a complete moronic-idiot to buy such a tall-tale.

Enough said...

Originally posted by downisreallyup

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by budaruskie

 

I really don't see what there is to debunk in your Rumsfeld clip.

He is not much more articulate than his old boss but it is quite clear from the context, referring to the people who carried out the attacks in New York and the Pentagon, that he just means UA 93 was taken down violently. Only conspiracy theorists could make a big deal out of one word.

There is zero evidence of a shoot down. UA 93 was seen at low level in one piece. The CVR provides no evidence to support a shoot down. The FDR shows that all systems were functioning up to impact.

However, supposing it was shot down ; what would that prove ? that air defences worked a little better than we thought. Certainly doesn't prove a government conspiracy, rather the reverse. Also, why would the government deny it ? Wouldn't the vast majority of people accept it as a tragic necessity given the loss of life elsewhere and the fact that UA 93 was on course for Washington ?

Sorry... flight 93 landed at Cleveland and no amount of good-for-nothing-lying-disguising-itself-as-debunking will ever debunk that fact. Just as in the case with Roswell, if you EVER hear the truth about an event it will be in the first 24 hours. It will be told by the people who are merely doing their job to report the truth. Then, once the high-level handlers hear something that they want covered up, they will come in with a retraction or other form of cover-up.

Flight 93 landed at Cleveland along with another "mirrored flight" where it dispensed with all the 9/11 passengers.

Study the material on the following site addressing this very important topic... if you dare...

The Cleveland Airport Mystery - September 11th

Your crazy, insane, and 100% totally unbelievable "Shanksville" fabrication is a "truster" farce beyond farces, and any person would have to be a complete moronic-idiot to buy such a tall-tale.

Enough said...

I really didn't think anyone believed in this Cleveland rubbish any more.

It was a Delta flight, not UA 93.

www.youtube.com...

Adding more mystery to which plane went where.......we have:


www.youtube.com...

Are you guys really serious. You can't believe you have proved anything. The OS guys have not either.

Address the questions i presented earlier, like:

How did the implosions happen at free fall speed?

Where did the energy come from to turn the buildings to dust?

Explain the "perfect" implosions -- three of them in one day. Never before had even one building perfectly implosion?

When you talk about "Perfect" -- one name comes to mind --- "GOD".

Neither "theory" is correct -- not by Official Story, not by "Conspiracy".

911 was an act of GOD -- no matter what the members of this Church think.

Originally posted by etcorngods
911 was an act of GOD -- no matter what the members of this Church think.

Now I have officially heard everything. Well, looks like we can put this baby to rest now.
Thank God (what took ya so long though?)

reply to post by Alfie1


It was you who said about the why question I posted “Congratulations on encapsulating just about every totally debunked bit of trutherism in one post.

So I think it would be fair to say that before I post my reaction on your questions it must be you who provide me first the evidence for those in your eyes already debunked questions I posted.

It could if you are right save me some time on doing unnecessary work then.

reply to post by etcorngods


Ummm...a "perfect" implosion would imply that there was no rubble or dust left. The buildings would simply disappear, collapsing in on themselves. Perfect it wasn't.

Just a small point...implosions don't happen at free-fall speeds. Buildings though, can fall at those speeds.

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
reply to post by etcorngods

 

Ummm...a "perfect" implosion would imply that there was no rubble or dust left. The buildings would simply disappear, collapsing in on themselves. Perfect it wasn't.

Just a small point...implosions don't happen at free-fall speeds. Buildings though, can fall at those speeds.

Don't try to be cute, just answer my questions.

Originally posted by etcorngods

Originally posted by The Baby Seal Club
reply to post by etcorngods

 

Ummm...a "perfect" implosion would imply that there was no rubble or dust left. The buildings would simply disappear, collapsing in on themselves. Perfect it wasn't.

Just a small point...implosions don't happen at free-fall speeds. Buildings though, can fall at those speeds.

Don't try to be cute, just answer my questions.

okay, I'll try.
1. there were no perfect implosions that day. The rubble from the buildings existed.

2. The energy used to turn the buildings into dust were kinetic in nature. In other words, a 500,000 ton building falling into itself. This in turn was caused by planes, fires, and possibly explosives.

3. Implosions do not happen at free-fall speed. The 2 things have nothing to do with each other.

Satisfied?