The TWIN towers were not brought down by CD explosives on 9/11

lol not a CD c"mon how can you tell that lol you people are very funny

and now what bush tells you there was explosive in the wtc lol
WATCH THIS VIDEO

reply to post by knowneedtoknow

Originally posted by knowneedtoknow
lol not a CD c"mon how can you tell that lol you people are very funny

and now what bush tells you there was explosive in the wtc lol
WATCH THIS VIDEO

Great video! I hadn't seen this one and it's amazing what you pick up with the technique used here. At 3:51+, that's the first time I've noticed the flashes on the upper stories and the flash on WTC 7 at 5:02+ - brilliant!

Assuming that the flashes haven't been edited in ( ), it's another slap in the face for the 911 Commission and the criminals who perpetrated this abominable crime.

reply to post by JohnJasper


I should read peoples mood optimistic

ok in the first video you will hear explosive going off and firefighter telling prople the bulding wt7 will go down

1. WTC7 Firefighters "Keep Your Eye on that Building, It's Coming Down


2nd video you will see a manhattan demolition truck pass by at 2:05

Manhattan Demolition Truck - seen on the street in New York on 911


And my favorite who funded the al qaeda the USA
Hillary Clinton-US Created Al Qaeda Trained, Armed, and Funded them Too


Ohh just like that i believe what i see not what someone told me ok
like those people that belive in the OS and how they argue whit no support to the OS what so ever

reply to post by knowneedtoknow


More good videos but the OS faithful just won't be able to appreciate them. Matter of fact, they wouldn't appreciate what this fireman has to say either!

Elevators exploded in the lobby 5 minutes after the aircraft hit! View from 0:16 - 0:50. It's too bad they cut him off just as he starts talking about the caretaker.

Let me start by saying I do not in any way shape or form admit to being either a truther or a truster because 1. No one but the gov't knows exactly what went down and 2. to trust their story is like trusting the church when they tell you the bodies of the heavens are perfectly spherical after they take away your telescope. With that said let us begin this little summary.

Regarding WTC7 "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein America Rebuilds 'Pull it' is a commonly known and used demolition term meaning 'let's get this show on the road, make it fall already'.

Here is a side by side comparison www.youtube.com... I didn't watch it all but I don't think it mentions the way the middle part of the roof crinkles up.

The Twin Towers however are a little different as the time it would take to rig it with explosives seems to me to be compelling evidence to debunk the CD theory however I'm sure we all know about the mysterious maintence workers who shut the buildings down to do their work a few weeks prior so perhaps this was their task but still not concrete evidence.
This is a good video to support the CD theory however again it is not concrete. www.youtube.com... Note the explosions particularly the one on the ground floor (which many eyewitness of 9/11 report), debris blowing the windows out, the 'pancake' style collapse, and the dust cloud that has become almost symbolic of 9/11.

Again I don't claim to be a truther or a truster I just know we're not being told the whole truth. make of this what you will.

Peace
Love
Jacktherer

reply to post by jacktherer
I would be interested in knowing if NIST gave an estimation for the collapse times of the WTC towers or how much of the collapse they admit was freefall. I know that they say the initiation collapse of the towers occurred at 'essentially freefall', but how many floors was that? NIST do say that the seismic data and video footage of the collapses aren't reliable indicators when it comes to accurately measuring the collapse-times of the buildings, and as far as my limited capacities are able to judge, NIST don't give any time. People are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong. I know the Commission Report (which isn't a scientific body) says WTC2 collapsed in around 10 seconds, which is more or less freefall. If I had to throw out an estimation based on the available video footage from the day I would put the collapse times at about 10-15 seconds and 20 seconds including the core, which was seen standing moments after. Even if the collapse took 16 second I would think that would be too long, since the building, to my knowledge had a 10x load bearing redundancy, and should have provided thousands of times more resistance than air.

Freefall aside though, I *still* don't think that the upper-section of the building should have collapsed straight down symmetrically (because as everyone knows, objects invariably fall to the least path of resistance), especially when you see videos and photographs of the top-section toppling sideways before apparently falling through the tower below, which to me seems an impossibility, because once an object is set in motion it must remain in motion unless acted on (in the opposite direction) by an external force, as Newtonian laws require. For the top-section of the building to collapse through the lower half we must assume that it straightened up and regained stable equilibrium after pivoting around its centre of mass. How is that possible? How does an object go from experiencing unstable equilibrium (displacement from its centre of mass) to stable equilibrium without any external forces acting upon it? Of course, it's a rhetorical question, because it's mathematically impossible no less.

What's telling, I think, is that the upper-floors of WTC2 are conspicuously absent from the rubble pile afterwards. If the 15 floors (which accounted for only about 10% of the towers overall mass and which represented a massive loss of kinetic energy) completely crushed the tower below shouldn't the 15 floors have remained? As far as my layman's eye is able to infer, there are just too my anomalies to think that the collapses were exclusively gravity-driven. It's telling that NIST's computer models don't even document 90% of the collapse for the towers and instead stop at the collapse initiation. NIST parade around their computer models as if they're scientifically legitimate, but they're just purely subjective, as opposed to the more qualitative measure of empirical evidence, which NIST still have failed to provide to support their theory of progressive collapse. The more and more I ruminate the more I lean towards the idea of a controlled demolition.

WTC7 was such an obvious controlled demolition it boggles my mind as to why some people still think it collapsed from fire. It's just, beyond me.

Well, that's my rant over for the day.

9/11 has become a HUGE psychological problem. After NINE YEARS people who have been saying that airliners and fire brought down the buildings would look awfully stupid if they had to admit that simple physics dictates that it was IMPOSSIBLE.

Here is a problem from early in the thread:

Each building = 450,000,000 / 110 floors = 4,090,909 KGS per floor

I corrected this nonsense on page 3 of Frank Greening's 32 page paper in 2007. He was computing the Potential Energy so the issue was how much mass at what height.

Skyscrapers must be BOTTOM HEAVY.

There had to be more steel toward the bottom. As you go down every level must support more weight. Therefore it must be stronger. That means more steel which makes that level heavier. We should have been demanding the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level 8.5 years ago.

The WTC was 116 stories tall. There were 6 basement levels. Don't you think there must be A LOT of concrete in the basements of 110 story skyscrapers designed to withstand 150 mph winds?

So for the north tower 14 stories supposedly came straight down and crushed 95 stories that had to get stronger and heavier all of the way down in less than 18 seconds. The conservation of momentum alone should make that very nearly IMPOSSIBLE. I have a Python program that computes just on the basis of the acceleration of mass with no structural resistance that would take about 12 seconds. Various mass distributions give around 12 second collapse times. So any structural resistance whatsoever would have to make it longer. But various estimates for the collapse times of the north tower are 8, 10 and 11 seconds.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

So all of the EXPERTS on both sides of the issue, including Richard Gage, need to explain why they haven't been demanding accurate steel and concrete distribution data for NINE YEARS.

But since skyscrapers must get stronger and heavier all of the way down therefore how does the lighter 14% crush a heavier 85% and accelerate all of the way?

www.youtube.com...

Of course the more absurd thing is how does the nation that put men on the Moon 41 years ago not solve a grade school physics problem in 9 years?

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

Why should we listen to physicists talk about Black Holes and Big Bangs if they let this crap drag on? The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools. How is it that the core columns in the Purdue simulation don't move in unison as the plane comes in? The NIST says the south tower deflected and oscillated for 4 minutes after impact but the columns stand still in Purdue's ACCURATE SCIENTIFIC simulation. ROFLMAO

psik