Explosive News

"not free fall"

11 seconds versus 8 seconds to fall the height of the WTC to the ground if you dropped a lead ball. So we are both right.

However, if you imploded the WTC with a series of charges, it would take about 11 seconds to fall.

A "pancake" collapse would require each layer hitting the next and overcoming its resistance and it would HAVE TO tear away from its supports, since falling or not, they would still hold up the mass of the building. A pancake collapse, would take around 60 seconds. A simple experiment with billiard balls will show you that hitting one ball with another, takes less time than having one billiard ball hit the next, exchange its force, and then that ball hits the next ball. More balls equals more time for reaction.

When we look at the video, falling "dust and debris" barely have enough time to get two stories ahead of the collapse, and a big 20 story chunk of one tower disintegrates in mid-air. I'm going to stick with my lying eyes on this one and ignore that buzzing sound telling me I'm a "conspiracy theorist" because I don't believe the Bush administration. 9/11 would be the ONLY time on record they were telling the truth -- what are the odds on that?

>> And the "just assume a plane can collapse it crowd" -- even if everything happened as we were told -- it still doesn't explain the massive operation by Dick Cheney to leave all but one plane on the Eastern Seaboard occupied when the FBI, Israelis and Pakistani and a dozen other security agencies around the world are on record (not in the US media of course) warning the US about such an event.

If everything is true, and a building can collapse as if it were being demolished from a simple fire (Jet fuel NOT being much hotter than an office fire which is pretty dang hot) -- we still have massive evidence that they LET IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE.

And then of course, Dick Cheney admitted to allowing Torture, he and Bush are war profiteers, and I don't take this crap that they get out of war crimes because their pet lawyer "told them they could." That excuse doesn't hold water in front of any judge in the country. You go tell a judge "my lawyer told me I could rape and kill that little girl" and see if you don't wind up in prison.

reply to post by seethelight


Demolitions don't BOTHER trying to be discrete -- your point is moot.

If you cut the outer struts and the inner core, you only need simple shaped charges aimed INWARD and there would be no explosions to see. A shaped charge designed to cut a support, doesn't make a big bang or a lot of light. The HUGE debris cloud would block most of it anyway -- how did a fire make it leap out over 100 feet in every direction?


The WTC had an inner core and load-bearing curtain wall -- so if you CUT the inner supports -- like a bridge, it folds down like a parasol. There is just no way for an aluminum plane or a jet fuel fire to bring down that core. It should have still been standing -- ESPECIALLY if there were a pancake collapse. The whole point of a few floors overwhelming the design "hinges" so to speak, on the floor connectors breaking due to heat (all at once, around the building, I might add so that one side doesn't collapse ahead of the other).

If floor supports break, and the "suspension bridge" design of the floors fail (and of course, the mid-floor supports as well), then the BREAK FREE from the core.

The CORE, slumped down first -- as if it were cut for a demolition.

>> And stop -- STOP with this nonsense that a plane flying into it would "cut the core." Look for any video of a plane test crashing into a brick wall -- many times weaker than smaller than the core of the WTC -- the brick wall wins. There is not enough HEAT and TIME for a plane full of jet fuel to weaken a huge metal tube that would be conducting the heat away. Two FLOORS might have a high temperature, but don't have enough heat.

There is not enough heat, force, or magic fairy dust to have broken the core of the building. Only the engines on an airplane are that dense. And we can see from photos of the WTC than many of the struts right near the entry point were still standing -- meaning the wings probably shredded on impact. If a foot-wide metal strut beats the wing -- then the two engines striking the core would be like trying to bring down a ladder with a BB Gun.

The problem is that this WT writer is trying to PROVE too much. Stick with OBVIOUS things rather than say "the demolition exploded it outwards" when it makes more sense that shaped chargers would be directed inwards -- don't fall for the classic trap of PROVING things you don't have evidence for -- just say; "this doesn't make sense and we need evidence."

Here is a great point;

"multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft. at 60 mph" and the "mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking."

Yeah, how does THAT happen from a falling building, are rods of steal bending and forming spontaneous catapults on the way down? Saying that Firefighters hearing explosions are confused by light bulbs is like saying that Firefighters in NY have never been in burning buildings before. Sheesh!

I STILL want the theory explained to me, how 20 stories turned to dust in mid-air RIGHT on video!

I don't hold out much hope of justice. Dick Cheney was on TV admitting to torture, and then people in the media chirp in with "His lawyer told him he could -- we can't prosecute." So, you make a noose big enough so that he and his lawyer can hang at the same time -- problem solved, right?

But we can't hold someone accountable who ADMITS the crime on TV -- we KNOW this guy is already guilty of so many things, but we CAN'T prosecute. At least, that's what the TV keeps telling me.

So 9/11 is so yesterday -- its nothing but a flag pin today of mock outrage that we must avenge by attacking the wrong countries. If it ever DOES actually meet up with justice -- sometime after our economy collapses and we rebuild from scratch -- nobody will be able to read the history of our decade and believe anyone was gullible enough to SEE a building get demolished, and then nod their heads and say; "Oh yes, it's perfectly reasonable, you see, Steel structures are susceptible to fires -- Squawk!" It's like the Germans claiming that they didn't know Buckenwald wasn't a Sausage factory with all that smoke poring out.

But today, this is going nowhere and an article in the WT won't change a thing. As long as we are still pretending we have a war on terror and we can't withdraw -- as long as we can't audit the Fed and they can print up Trillions on a whim -- as long as we can't have healthcare and Credit Card companies can bankrupt families with high interest and we no longer have bankruptcy protection.

Damn we are screwed. 9/11 is just a symbolic example that we cannot get justice and that false flags are good for business. Bush is obviously guilty of war crimes and this past week he was holding hands with some dictators pledging allegiance to oil profits -- it doesn't even make the back page of the news.

What does it matter if the NeoCons hang for 9.11, treason, war crimes, bank fraud -- when they don't even get a traffic ticket? It's just depressing that we have to PROVE anything. It's like watching the Sopranos and arguing about whether he actually put that particular horse head in THAT bed -- who cares -- it's Tony Soprano -- he's guilty already!

reply to post by rainfall


I was wondering... The big to do about putting the *so called Terrorists* on trial in NYC...A huge amount of people are against this. Some feel that they don't even deserve a trial. (I can guess the people who are screaming NO the loudest!) I on the other hand do feel they deserve a trial. We should be an example for other Countries...innocent until proven guilty... right? Anyway's... putting these guy's on trail, wouldn't that help our cause? If we get the right guy's to defend these people they could bring forth a LOT of evidence of what really happened on 911 and who was really behind these attacks and why... or at least bring out the fact that we know who didn't do it?? ?? ??

Just read an interesting article which, featuring a number of prominent government officials as well as 9/11 commissioners and senior intell, discusses how the Big Lie is unraveling.....

patriotsquestion911.com...



Some interesting comments, with links, from many a highly decorated luminary!!

Have a look 'bunkers......I dare you....might do you good!!

The bottom line??

The Official story is a lie......so say the experts.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by benoni]

Originally posted by tracehd1
reply to post by rainfall

 

I was wondering... The big to do about putting the *so called Terrorists* on trial in NYC...

putting these guy's on trail, wouldn't that help our cause? If we get the right guy's to defend these people they could bring forth a LOT of evidence of what really happened on 911 and who was really behind these attacks and why... or at least bring out the fact that we know who didn't do it?? ?? ??

Exactly tracehd1...

WE WANT this trial in NY civilian court.....that way all the evidence will be on public display....

Bush and Cheney are shaking in their shoes...

Before the government will allow a new (or real) investigation to happen, I'm sure another war (Iran) will start or another 911 will happen just in time to divert attention from this...

Wasn't there supposed to be some kind of congressional hearings in the fall of 2001?
If 9/11 was an inside job, is there also a possibility that 9/11 was a diversion?

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


All very interesting (and of course not backed up by any evidence), but tell me, if that's the case, why did the collapse start at the spot in the buildings where the planes crashed?

If you simply take the legs out from under something they will either fall over or, as you guys seem to think is impossible, pancake.

The only things that could make it collapse fairly straight down are demo charged placed in such a way as to create a free fall OR of if it collapsed from the top down and gravity gave it a helping hand (i.e. when enough support was removed from the damaged area due to heat weakening the steal, the top stories collapsed into the rest and that weight - along with the other damage cause by the shock of the strike and the fires - caused a successive collapse).

In addition to that, what the witnesses reported was an explosion every 15-20 minutes after the planes struck. That's not how taking out the core would work.

You'd have a massive explosion, then collapse.

No videos report that.

Add to that all the PROOF videos which claim to show squibs, etc. and the video evidence which actually shows the weight of the top floors bending the steel beams in, not out, at the beginning of the collapse and your shaped charges idea doesn't really stack up.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by seethelight]

reply to post by rainfall


Hardly.

It'll be funny (on some level) to watch the faither movement go through this trial.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by rainfall

 

Hardly.

It'll be funny (on some level) to watch the faither movement go through this trial.

I am just curious what part of New York you are from. You do not have to be specific very specific but your "hardly" makes me curious.

So you guys never answered my questions, huh?

And you never explained why Jones would create propaganda either...

Awesome.

Originally posted by seethelight
So you guys never answered my questions, huh?

And you never explained why Jones would create propaganda either...

Awesome.

Is this one of the questions you accused me of dodging? I asked you to point out to me where they were. Why did you fail to do that?

I never once advocated Jones or thermite or any combo of such. I will be happy to answer any and all questions you think I may have dodged if you can point them out. I am not sure how to answer on a topic I have not spoken of though. Maybe I need your help there.

Still curious what part of NY you are from too.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by seethelight


i can answer. perhaps jones is setting up one of the biggest strawmen in the universe, so that when it burns down, there will be no more wiggle room for doubting the official story.
however, his strawman's not all that big, if strawman it is indeed. there are far too many other factors than the specific method of demolition that prove that the "government" is lying about what really happened.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by rainfall

 

Hardly.

It'll be funny (on some level) to watch the faith movement go through this trial.

Your Avatar "seethelight" implies that you are awake! somehow that seem's to be a contradiction in terms! open your eyes! ps I think your a windup man, yea cant be that blind! have yea looked at the skyes over Ireland latley? there not contrails man!

If this goes to trial I wonder what all the "I dont belive it was an inside gang" will do?

[edit on 26-2-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

The towers were brought down with tactical nuclear weapons. The Ultimate Truth is here: www.anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com

reply to post by palomine


Sorry, here's the link again:

anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by palomine
The towers were brought down with tactical nuclear weapons. The Ultimate Truth is here: www.anonymous-physicist.blogspot.com

I would rather not read every article on that blog to find the one you are speaking of...
Could you give us the title?