WTC 1/2 Collapse: I was a truther. Not any longer.

Originally posted by micpsi
Bigger, but the tower was designed to withstand impact from a faster plane. Do the maths and you will find the kinetic energy of the 707 is higher than that of the 767 at cruise speed. Size does not matter. It's kinetic energy that counts and so your argument fails.

I know this was on page three, micpsi, but I needed to point something out to you. The 767s on 9/11 were going significantly faster than cruising speed. Full throttle during a descent is not exactly cruising.

Just thought I would point that out. Lots more kinetic energy with an increase in velocity like that. Plus, the towers did withstand the impacts. It was the ensuing fire coupled with the impacts that caused issues.

I have seen many of these converted truth er posts. I am sure many of them are not genuine. If you truly feel you are converted at this time, please watch the link below with Dimitri Khalezov. Richard Gage only found the evidence of how they cut the beams for size to be shipped to Japan, not how the buildings truly came down. Dimitri's explanation is the only one that makes sense. I am surprised his interview is still available to watch.
www.disclose.tv...

Originally posted by stevecc
When the first plane hit, can someone explain why the windows in the lobby were blown out. Still can't get ny head round that.

magic air pressure DUH! although wtc towers had sections sealed off in case of fire.
so that the whole building wouldn't act like a large chimney in case of fire. i read
that on some kooky conspirator website. oh noes, wait. one of the engineers who
worked on wtc said that (iirc). and it's a fact. whoopsie-doopsie. debunkers and
shills are having a sudden attack of headache. stand back, please. shill might
self-combust. juj.

Originally posted by radhaya88
I have seen many of these converted truth er posts. I am sure many of them are not genuine. If you truly feel you are converted at this time, please watch the link below with Dimitri Khalezov. Richard Gage only found the evidence of how they cut the beams for size to be shipped to Japan, not how the buildings truly came down. Dimitri's explanation is the only one that makes sense. I am surprised his interview is still available to watch.
www.disclose.tv...

disinfo, conitelpro anyone?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by micpsi
Bigger, but the tower was designed to withstand impact from a faster plane. Do the maths and you will find the kinetic energy of the 707 is higher than that of the 767 at cruise speed. Size does not matter. It's kinetic energy that counts and so your argument fails.

I know this was on page three, micpsi, but I needed to point something out to you. The 767s on 9/11 were going significantly faster than cruising speed. Full throttle during a descent is not exactly cruising.

Just thought I would point that out. Lots more kinetic energy with an increase in velocity like that. Plus, the towers did withstand the impacts. It was the ensuing fire coupled with the impacts that caused issues.

yeah, silly. those "collapses" merely looked like controlled demolitions. it was just a coincidence.
along with other 567 concidences engulfing both days prior and after 9/11. shilleremia knows best.
yo, check it!

reply to post by Gando702


How is it that on September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers and Building 7 all collapsed in the same exact way? The Twin Towers were hit by planes, yes, but they were hit in two very different places, yet they both collapsed so perfectly all the way, straight down, each floor in rapid succession without any resistance from the lower part of the towers that were still intact. The first tower was hit around floors 92-94 according to Popular Mechanics. That would leave around 16 floors above the impact zone. How would 16 floors have enough "inertia" to cause the lower 91 floors all to collapse like a house of cards?

The second tower hit was hit much lower, almost at the halfway mark and towards a corner. When the building started collapsing, it should have fallen towards the damaged corner and it looked like it started to, but then magically, it straightened up and then collapsed nice and even all the rest of the way down.

How could those two towers both collapse the same way? Very uniform and symmetrical even though they were damaged in two different places? On a day of chaos and destruction, these two towers fell so perfectly. Then there's Building 7 which we won't go into. But that was definitely a controlled demolition. Maybe it would have been believable if only one tower or building collapsed the way they did, but three? Give me a break and tell me another fairy tale. So, I don't know what it was that made you suddenly believe the official cover-up, but even you mentioned Building 7s collapse was a demo. If one collapse is suspicious and questionable, then you know what? They're ALL questionable. It's so obvious.

I definitely have some issues with the way it all went down, that day. Pun intended. I started watching the news before the second plane even hit.

I do have a question:

Where does the shock wave, energy of 400000lb object moving 4-500 mph go? The plane didn't go through the building and keep going....that energy was absorbed by the building. That would seem to do a lot more damage than just "fire", no? Also, the explosion from the jet fuel carried some energy too?

I haven't really looked into this part, as I've never really thought of it...I just keep hearing "buildings don't collapse because of fire" over and over and over. Fine, I get it, but it wasn't just "fire".

Anyone have any vids or knowledge there?

I definitely disbelieve the O.S. on multiple levels, but....Not really schooled enough for the physics involved in my original question.

reply to post by pshea38


OMG! If you play the video and listen, you can hear the incoming plane. Stop the video at 00.05 seconds. It looks like the wings disappear when it hits the building and there are two bright flashes. Why would the wings disappear like that?

Good for you, they still admittedly had prior knowledge of the attacks and did nothing. Even the Russians said, “hey look at that”! We don’t invade two countries and kill 300,000+ because a handfull of terrorists hijacked some planes and used them as weapons!

I am sorry, but I have to say this. The Patriot act is a joke and we are less secure because of the wars.

1. The cartels are intimately associated with the Al Qaeda and related through the heroin trade.
2. Our borders are wide open and all that would stand in a terrorists way would be some cacti and a few rattlesnakes.
3. There are so many illegal’s in country that we could never tell the difference between a terrorist and the average illegal.
4. The cartels could ship them in by the truck load completely undetected.

I have to think that if we were really concerned with security the borders would be sealed, and the influx of literally hundreds of thousand every year would come to an abrupt end. A page on Wikipedia says there are an estimated 12 million+ in this country illegally. Most of these people just strolled across the border completely unhindered!

If you went to the beach and scooped up a handfull of sand, you would have around a million grains of sand. Think about that 12 million figure for a moment!

All the while, all I keep hearing is how the internet is some huge risk! It is starting to sound like a modern version of book burning. It is no wonder why trust in the government is at all time lows.

I may be off base, but I think I see a clear push to dismantle the EPA. Take the vote from those with a $0.00 tax liability. End welfare and other tools we use to prevent extreme poverty, and end workers rights to assemble to seek reproach to their grievences.

To sit here and listen to the government maintain that they do not participate in currency manipulation E.G. Competitive Devaluation of the Dollar, is the biggest load of horse manure I have ever seen as well. Reading the wiki page below reads like an instruction manual for our current financial woes even!
What other purpose would a threat of default serve etc…?
en.wikipedia.org...

Am I wrong? If so please do explain yourself! I would love to be wrong!

How much would you like to bet that we will be in Iran by 2013? Seriosly lets make a wager!

I don't know why people say: "burning jet fuel hasn't enough temperature to molt steel"
Ever heard of furnace in forge? It can strengthen the temperature of burning coal, just enough to make steel bendable. I suppose WTC "shell" could worked like furnace.
I would like to see an experiment, where jet fuel and some office things are ignited in blacksmith furnace.

Originally posted by Calex1987
so please explain this then because this building got hit by a plane...yet today its still standing tall and was older then the towers....www.aerospaceweb.org...

so the empire state building took a direct hit from a B25bomber and stayed standing the twin towers we're built to take multiple hits from an even bigger air craft...yet the older building that was infact on fire hit by an aircraft and yet is still standing...im having a problem here.

The Empire State Building was a standard steel girder frame building. The Twin Towers were constructed in a different way.

Originally posted by BigBruddah
Thank you for actually posting an anti-truther thread that isnt just 'you truthers are idiots it was terrorists' etc.

But the same things you have said that prove the building collapsed from a terrorist strike can be used in defence of us truthers. The fire from jet fuel is in no way possible able to bring the building down, as simple as that. Also the amount of evidence found perfectly intact by the people investigating is a bit fishy. Finally, what really actually makes me a truther is why there is no mention of building Seven in the reports. It was just ignored and if there was a comprehensive report on what happened to it I would actually have a little bit of faith regarding what the government said.

Hey conspiracy theorists!!! 9/11 was organized and conducted by an intelligent species, not fully known about. It was not Osama Bin Laden. He was just a pawn in their little charade. it was not aliens either, as 9/11 would have been too primitive for aliens. nope. Fact is the whole damn thing was the brainchild of...Big Foot!!!

Originally posted by Calex1987
but yet there are tons of engineers who will look at you and go the fire wasnt hot enough to explain the molten steel pouring out of the side of the building jet fuel alone and office supplies do NOT burn hot enough to do what your saying its been proven....and they are the first steel structure's to actually "collapse" because of fire...please if your so inclined tell me why a building that burned for 18hours straight stayed standing...it must of went threw way more hell Considering it burnt for 18hours over what 54 mins? you say your wife is an architect.....well then even she could tell you she didnt know for a fact it would come down...or the fact she really thought it would since a fire has NEVER taken a steel structure down..... i would love to argue every point of your new found belief but it would be pointless...

edit on 20-9-2011 by Calex1987 because: (no reason given)

Was that building that burned for 18 hours slammed into by a jet aircraft that weighed as much as a passenger airliner?

Look, if you guys need to point fingers, you have no-one to blame but yourself (being an American). I say that only to infuse the fact that we are all Americans, and that we are the target of every enemy known to man, foreign and domestic.

I was the target, you were the target, every American was the target.

And I commend and respect every American that survived that day for staring terror in its eyes, and saying "F*ck you, who ever did this!!!

Originally posted by DemonicUFO
Wife girlfriend whatever you know what I meant, and another thing, I heard the world trade centers were designed to take impact from the biggest planes in existence. What about all the other skyscrapers that have caught fire and never went down like these.

edit on 20-9-2011 by DemonicUFO because: (no reason given)

and you can cite this - WTC's being able to stand impact from biggest planes in existence - from what credible source? And I dont mean 'truther' sites, but the engineers and architects that actually designed the building, as they are only ones who would know....


we're waiting on that citation....

Originally posted by Gando702
For years I'd have anyone who would listen to me for more than a few seconds watch the YouTube videos, check out ATS, and read anything they could on the events of 9/11. I then decided to just take some time, and simply research ONE event, ONE happening that had plenty of evidence, plenty of conversation and debate, and ONE part of the official story that I didn't believe, and see if I could make some sense of it.

You researched the wrong event. You should have been paying attention to the pentagon, it's much easier to understand what happened.

I could go on and post numerous websites and references and videos, but (hopefully) there are others like me who really don't have time to sift through every single reference on one of those long, drawn out threads, and with the abundance of information, not only on this site, but on the internet, it's easy to find evidence backing up everything I will explain.

You don't have the time to post evidence???

Without presenting evidence to back up your claims, all you are doing is making bare assertions and wasting OUR time.

Some simple facts, and some flaws in the arguments of truthers:
1. The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed. To say that they shouldn't have fallen because they were designed to withstand a hit from any plane is a bit ridiculous.
2. The steel columns lost a considerable amount of their strength due to the intense heat cause by the fires inside the building. They wouldn't remain standing, as they're still bolted to the trusses and concrete slabs, and by being weakened by the fire, were simply bent down and snapped by the weight of the collapse.
3. Asking for evidence of 110 floors nicely stacked up at the bottom of the rubble is like asking for a carton of eggs to be intact after being dropped 10 feet onto concrete. Stuff breaks. The farther it falls, and the more it has falling on top of it, the more unrecognizable it's going be after the collapse.
4. Comparing temperature charts to grainy pictures of flames from the fires, and claiming that the fires must have been hot enough to constitute thermite is silly. I can light a match, and it will have several of the colors on those charts, and the flame from my match isn't going to come close to 1100 degrees.
5. Towers 1 and 2 WERE a controlled demolition. Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges. The building was weakened, burned, and collapsed. The building had nowhere to go but down. Anyone claiming that the second tower should have "tipped over" because of the angle, is naive at best. It's still being held together by the core columns, and even being weakened, still held the building together. The building simply had too much inertia to go anywhere but straight down.

Nice straw man.

There are plenty of events that day that are absolutely unexplainable, and we probably will NEVER know exactly why certain things happened. I'm respectful of EVERYONE'S beliefs, because at one time I was convinced.

what is unexplainable?

My wife put up with me talking about this for 3 years. She holds an architecture degree from Arizona State University, and when I told her that I was starting to change my mind, she smiled and said, "I didn't feel like arguing with something you seemed so close minded about, but when I saw the gaping holes in those buildings, I knew they were coming down sooner or later. The impacts were too low, leaving too much weight above them for them to remain standing."

Your wife is a dirty liar, not too bright, or is suffering from EXTREME hindsight bias if she said she knew the towers were going to come down.

Like I said, I respect everyone's beliefs. Building 7 is a different story. I think some people had a vested interest in seeing that building fall. But to me, WTC1&2 fell because of a perfect storm of structural damage, fire, weakening core columns and too much weight above the damaged floors that couldn't possibly be supported as the structure weakened.

Peace.

I don't respect your beliefs, because they are flat out wrong. However, you should respect the truths that I accept .

What happened to those towers is a physical impossibility unless explosives were used.

Period.

I really wish we had the ability to thumbs down a post.

reply to post by Gando702


Well IMO the fact you have changed view so quickly when you still have so many questions unanswered on both side of the argument suggests you are trying to draw a conclusion based on your attention span not based on conclusive evidence all pointing to the same outcome.

You effectilvly say you accept WTC 7 was an inside job but that this was different...
It happened on the same day, fell in the same fashion as the other WTC buildings - you seem to indicate it was coincidence? Was it also a coincidence that the day before the 9/11 attacks the administration had annouced they were missing 2.3 Trillion dollars? Was it a coincidence the part of the pentagon that was working on the lost money was in the section hit and destroyed? Was it a coincidnce that they were running training drills for the exact scenario when it happened?

Too many coincidences too many unanswered questions - I WILL BELIEVE THE REAL STORY WHEN THEY CAN EXPLAIN AWAY ALL THE COINCIDENCE AND ANSWERS SOME REAL QUESTIONS.

reply to post by Donkey_Dean


I think Iran is coming much sooner but by 2013 for sure.

Originally posted by Gando702
For years I'd have anyone who would listen to me for more than a few seconds watch the YouTube videos, check out ATS, and read anything they could on the events of 9/11. I then decided to just take some time, and simply research ONE event, ONE happening that had plenty of evidence, plenty of conversation and debate, and ONE part of the official story that I didn't believe, and see if I could make some sense of it.

I could go on and post numerous websites and references and videos, but (hopefully) there are others like me who really don't have time to sift through every single reference on one of those long, drawn out threads, and with the abundance of information, not only on this site, but on the internet, it's easy to find evidence backing up everything I will explain.

Some simple facts, and some flaws in the arguments of truthers:
1. The building was hit by a plane far larger than the original design when the towers were engineered and constructed. To say that they shouldn't have fallen because they were designed to withstand a hit from any plane is a bit ridiculous.
2. The steel columns lost a considerable amount of their strength due to the intense heat cause by the fires inside the building. They wouldn't remain standing, as they're still bolted to the trusses and concrete slabs, and by being weakened by the fire, were simply bent down and snapped by the weight of the collapse.
3. Asking for evidence of 110 floors nicely stacked up at the bottom of the rubble is like asking for a carton of eggs to be intact after being dropped 10 feet onto concrete. Stuff breaks. The farther it falls, and the more it has falling on top of it, the more unrecognizable it's going be after the collapse.
4. Comparing temperature charts to grainy pictures of flames from the fires, and claiming that the fires must have been hot enough to constitute thermite is silly. I can light a match, and it will have several of the colors on those charts, and the flame from my match isn't going to come close to 1100 degrees.
5. Towers 1 and 2 WERE a controlled demolition. Just not in the sense of C4/Thermite/Dynamite charges. The building was weakened, burned, and collapsed. The building had nowhere to go but down. Anyone claiming that the second tower should have "tipped over" because of the angle, is naive at best. It's still being held together by the core columns, and even being weakened, still held the building together. The building simply had too much inertia to go anywhere but straight down.

There are plenty of events that day that are absolutely unexplainable, and we probably will NEVER know exactly why certain things happened. I'm respectful of EVERYONE'S beliefs, because at one time I was convinced.

My wife put up with me talking about this for 3 years. She holds an architecture degree from Arizona State University, and when I told her that I was starting to change my mind, she smiled and said, "I didn't feel like arguing with something you seemed so close minded about, but when I saw the gaping holes in those buildings, I knew they were coming down sooner or later. The impacts were too low, leaving too much weight above them for them to remain standing."

Like I said, I respect everyone's beliefs. Building 7 is a different story. I think some people had a vested interest in seeing that building fall. But to me, WTC1&2 fell because of a perfect storm of structural damage, fire, weakening core columns and too much weight above the damaged floors that couldn't possibly be supported as the structure weakened.

Peace.

Great post. Just one question though. What are the chances of both buildings falling in exactly the same way? I mean what are the chances of the perfect storm happening twice right in a row. And then a third hours later?

I would say the odds are about as good as hitting the Power ball twice in one day. Just that alone is enough for me to know something is up.

Originally posted by piotrburz
I don't know why people say: "burning jet fuel hasn't enough temperature to molt steel"
Ever heard of furnace in forge? It can strengthen the temperature of burning coal, just enough to make steel bendable. I suppose WTC "shell" could worked like furnace.
I would like to see an experiment, where jet fuel and some office things are ignited in blacksmith furnace.

The only problem with that theory.And I say this to everyone really. Jet Fuel is super flammable. How much of that Jet fuel went up in the explosion itself? I would estimate, super flammable fuel multiplied by big ass explosion equals about 80 percent. I doubt very much that the jet fuel itself had a huge baring on the actual building. Yes it's an opinion. Not sure many look at it that way.