nail on the effin' head.

Can we stop traffic and play this on every outdoor television for a week. It's like watching a building collapse in slow motion. Hope this makes Top 15.

>> ^Fade:
>> ^spoco2:
I'm not saying particularly that Bin Laden etc. were responsible. What they are claiming is that the buildings collapsed due to a planned demolition and that the planes hitting the buildings were merely a coverup to hide it. I don't know who brought down the towers other than it was those piloting the aeroplanes into them that did it... having a 767 smashing into it at high speed can do that to a building
Really? When, outside of 911, have you seen a 767 smash into a building designed to withstand a 767 smashing into it. I mean, you make it sound like collapsing in on itself is the obvious result but I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. Can you provide evidence for the claim?


So, because you've seen a building be demolished and it looks the same as that, you think that that's the only plausible explanation for the WTC to collapse? Despite the fact that you know aeroplanes crashed into them? If you actually looked at how the WTC were built (centre steal core with an outer web) and then considered what happened (fires heated the steal trusses between the inner and outer portions to an extent that they started to bow) and also watched some actual footage of the side of the building being pulled inwards JUST as would happen if that was happening, and then saw that piece of the building actually give way and break, starting the chain reaction of the building collapse...

Well, then you might think 'yup, that seems pretty darn plausible to me'. Compare that to... well, let's see, we first have to have explosives planted around the place somehow... in such a way that NO ONE noticed... then we have to get this whole aeroplane crashing into the buildings thing to happen... THEN we have to have the building actually fail at the point where the aircraft entered (because there is video SHOWING it fail there first just as it starts to collapse), and then we somehow have to have some demolition work in such a way as people wouldn't see any further chargers going off.

It is such a complete and utter fools errand trying to suggest that they were brought down by demolition.

Then you have to ask who would do that? (sure, you can come up with a lot), but then you would also have to think... WHY would they come up with this convoluted way of doing things when there are much, much easier ways that would have just as easily been blamed on terrorists.

*sigh*

>> ^spoco2:
I'm not saying particularly that Bin Laden etc. were responsible. What they are claiming is that the buildings collapsed due to a planned demolition and that the planes hitting the buildings were merely a coverup to hide it. I don't know who brought down the towers other than it was those piloting the aeroplanes into them that did it... having a 767 smashing into it at high speed can do that to a building

Really? When, outside of 911, have you seen a 767 smash into a building designed to withstand a 767 smashing into it. I mean, you make it sound like collapsing in on itself is the obvious result but I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. Can you provide evidence for the claim?

>> ^Fade:
>> ^spoco2:
The part on 9/11... I have a friend who is SO frigging into the conspiracy theory, and it hinges on the most flimsy of 'evidence', and YES he was a Ron Paul supporter, AND he believes in UFOs..

And the flimsy evidence that Usama Bin Laden and 19 Hijackers did it managed to convince you?
I don't know about you but I didn't see any evidence that proved he/they did anything. Heck even the FBI doesn't think there's enough evidence to connect him to it.


I'm not saying particularly that Bin Laden etc. were responsible. What they are claiming is that the buildings collapsed due to a planned demolition and that the planes hitting the buildings were merely a coverup to hide it. I don't know who brought down the towers other than it was those piloting the aeroplanes into them that did it... having a 767 smashing into it at high speed can do that to a building.

What's wrong with being a Ron Paul supporter. Seems to me if everyone had listened to him in the 80's we wouldn't be in the shit right now.

I know bugger all about his policies really, but I just found it funny that in this video the guy connected the two... and I thought 'hey, yeah, he is an avid supporter of him too'. Nothing against RP, don't know enough to have anything against him.

And UFO's are real. The designation is a fairly normal term. It means unidentified flying object. Not believing in them is like not believing the sun will rise.

Oh, don't get all semantic. You know exactly what I'm talking about. The belief that there is some enourmous coverup that intelligent aliens have landed/crashed here, somehow met ONLY the US government and they are using their tech for weapons research.

I have no doubt there is other life out there, what I don't believe is that they have come here, only been seen by yokels etc. and left it at that. There are SO many things you can see in the sky that can be misconstrued as an alien spacecraft. Until I see incontrivutable proof of, or meet an alien (or ghost for that matter, same deal there) I won't believe in them... there's no proof at ALL that they exist.

Again, I'm not questioning WHY they collapsed. I'm questioning the manner in which this particular building collapsed. Time has no bearing on the matter. People still wonder how JFK was assassinated and it's been what, 40+ years?

28 views and counting and still no theories. C'mon all you armchair engineers on the sift. What gives? Seriously. All you guys that claim there is no funny business going on here. I'd like to hear some ideas.

Ya'all are way too quick to pass us who don't believe the official story off as "whack jobs", but entirely too slow to offer up any believable explanations as to exactly what happened here. And by here, I mean why didn't this building collapse to the side of the damage rather than in onto itself?

[edited due to obvious ignorant misconceptions of my intentions.]

>> ^volumptuous:
Awesome quote that totally sums up my feelings:
"Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid."

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons


You know those nutty moon-landing-was-a-hoax nutjobs? And all their goofy claims supporting their beliefs? Things like the flag appeared to be waving and there were unseen light sources causing unexplained reflections and so on?

Well, as much as I despise their sloppy I'd-rather-not-think thinking, I generally always humor their nuttiness by addressing each of their claims individually. I literally type out exactly my response to each of their claims. It's an easy task, no biggie for me.

This has the minimal affect of establishing myself as someone who has at least heard and understood each and every claim, no matter how goofy I may think they are.

Unsurprisingly, my explanations do not satisfy their need for conspiracy, but at least I've contributed in a worthwhile manner.

Of course, not everyone here can say that.

We have a similar situation with 9/11. However, I'm kind of on the conspirator's side. Why? Because nothing about these building collapses makes any sense to me.

Did you know they discovered microscopic spheres of iron in distant apartment buildings near ground zero? Why is this significant? See my newest video submission for the answer.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Steven-Jones-Pipes-In-About-9-11

Or don't. I can always go back to explaining how cloth behaves in a vacuum.

And if you're too chicken-shit to address the actual items in this video, if it feels better to mock the troofers, then...alrighty. Whatever.

As a kid my reaction in every earthquake was to saunter on up to the inside of a door frame and enjoy the ride because I was always at home during quakes. Don't know that I'd call a kid a coward for having his first instinct be to duck and cover especially considering he may have seen lots of buildings collapsing in earthquakes recently from all the China footage online.

Such natural finger pointing is part of why most people feel to embarrassed to react like their life depends on it, even in a life-threatening situation, because they'll be laughed at. I'd rather be made fun of and live than stand stoic and be destroyed.

So, please enlighten us, oh great and knowledgeable one: When was the last time two 747s, flying at speed, still loaded with fuel, crashed into two of the tallest buildings in the world? Also, when was the last time a 100+ storie building collapsed, with a large portion of it falling on to another building??

First time you say? OK.

*Sigh* Think about what you're saying. For this conspiracy to have happened, the ENTIRE NYPD AND NYFD would have to have been in on it. They searched WTC 7. Twice. Didn't find any special ops guys loading explosives. Don't mention any unusual explosions. Nobody reporting that the interior was perfectly fine until the whole building collapsed out of the blue. They weren't surprised at all the thing came down. They saw it leaning and buckling hours before it went and they had previously used. And they all report massive fires on multiple floors, which they were unable to fight because there was no water pressure.

But you're willing to believe one guy who comes out 7 years later and says "Oh actually, now that I think about it, I heard an explosion."

That's not "perfectly natural doubt." That's paranoia. You're not just beating a dead horse here. The horse is gone, they went and turned the remains into glue. There's nothing left to beat, but still you guys refuse to let go. Show me the evidence schmawy. Coincidence is not evidence. And anyone who thinks it is evidence is just plain ignorant in my opinion and deserves public censure.

And please oh please could you come up with a more plausible conspiracy while you're at it? They faked 9-11 so we would go to war... with Afghanistan? Come on now, why not just say Saddam did it and go straight to Iraq if that's your aim? If the architects of 9-11 are as good at this stuff as you guys claim they must be, they could easily have forged some link between Saddam and the 9-11 terrorists that we all would have bought. We barely thought twice about going into Afghanistan, do you really think we would have balked if Bush had come on the news and said Saddam did it?

I would like to answer your questions, but before I do...

Have actually read the report published by NIST?

If you haven't, then I suggest you do. It always best to absolutely understand the point of view you are arguing against. To date, there are no peer-reviewed scientific papers that present evidence supporting a collapse due to controlled demolition.

I'd like to begin with the point where you seem to suggest, that the buildings are made entirely of steel.

"(forget the fact that these are, and still remain to be, the only 3 steel structures in history that have collapsed due to fire)"

This is not true, and you should clarify your comment. While this may seem a minor point, it is significant because it is the crux of your 5th question.

Onto the evidence:

♦WTC1: hit @ 8:45a ... collapse @ 10:28a - 118 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC2: hit @ 9:03a ... collapse @ 10:05a - 62 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC7: never hit .... collapse @ 5:20p - 8 hrs 35 min after first tower impact

If this information is true, then I think it is remarkable on many aspects, and contrary to what a lot of people contend. It seems to me that these times are remarkably long, and in light of that I would encourage you to discuss these times with a certified demolitions or structural engineer.

For the most part, the detailed explanation can only truly be answered by detailed simulations, which actually have been done. I encourage you to go to your local library and do a literature search on ISI.

1-5 can be found in the NIST report, and other peer-reviewed articles.

I will address 4, briefly-

4. The answer is not remarkable. WTC7 collapsed because of proximity and momentum transfer (and subsequent events detailed in the NIST report). Rather then go on, you should closely read the scientific report put out by NIST. Before you do, you should also read the Wikipedia post of the subject, it is very well cited and will round out your perspective of the scientific research that has been done to investigate the collapse of the buildings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

If you are truly interested in understanding the nuances of the science behind the collapse, then you must be willing to subject your hypotheses to the rigor of science and evidence that implies something very different than what you believe happened. If you are not willing to test your ideas in a scientific way, then they are a belief. Unfortunately, I cannot argue beliefs only scientifically based points of view.

That said, if you have any further scientific questions, I would be more than happy to answer them or find someone who can.

Sincerely,

MH

In reply to this comment by LadyBug:

questions ...
§ how is it the WTC2 collapsed first due to intense fire given the fact that it was hit second with a majority of the jet fuel being propelled out of the NE & SE corners of the building?
§ how is that the cores of WTC1 & WTC2, along with all their corner support beams, gave way and fell uniformly? ... there was no buckling, shifting, or tilting at all during their collapse
§ how come the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 look identical even though the levels of impact, duration of fire, and amount of fuel in the building were drastically different?
§ how come WTC7 collapsed when there were no large fire(s) in that building?
§ how do 3 steel buildings collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint in a precisely vertical fashion?

*anxiously awaits answer*

For every one fake expert in one of these videos there's hundreds with real credentials saying controlled demolition is bull. Science and facts says it's bull. If you deny science for your beliefs that makes you a religious nut. You've abandoned pro-Bush crazy for conspiracy theory crazy. With all the "Osama is about to attack" intel flying around before 9/11, it was much easier for the Bush administration to just sit and wait then to do something. Clinton launched missiles against Osama's camps before 9/11 and Bush didn't.

And every piece of "evidence" in this video has been debunked previously:

The color of smoke doesn't tell you anything about the fire.

The building collapse was explained in detail (including core columns) in a previous video here on the sift that showed close up video debunking controlled demo theories. Many scientific publications have also done a much better job then this video shows explaining the science of the collapse.

Plane crash investigations are held when you don't know what part of it malfunctioned or if the pilot was a drunk git. TWA 800 exploded in mid-air so they didn't know why it exploded. After investigation it turned out to be a short circuit that ignited the center wing fuel tank. The 9/11 planes were hijacked by members of Al Qaeda (according to mountains of evidence) and flown into buildings. Flying jets at high speeds into very large buildings tends to make 'em get "blowed up real good". And if you want a conspiracy theory to think about, ask yourself why so many Republicans help fund these Loose Change videos.

there're a lot of mysteries surrounding 9/11, particularly that the U.S government will not release any information, photos or footage of a whole bunch of things surrounding the event.
a few things i have queries with: no footage of a plane hitting the pentagon, no photos of the wreckage of the other plane that just crashed into the ground. what's that molten metal stuff dripping out of the main buildings, why would all of the buildings fall identically to a controlled demolition?
wasnt there something on the bbc where they reported building 7 was going to fall - half an hour before it did. wasnt some firefighter or some guy in authority recorded sayng 'pull it'? some experts on controlled demolitions are shown the footage of these buildings collapsing and they give the verdict that they must have been 'pulled' with explosives. also no jets/interception was attempted at any point at the planes by the U.S government. there was an attempted bombing of the world trade center years before and there was something suspicious regarding the CIA to do with that. osama was trained by the CIA. there's more i cant think of right now, it might all mean nothing.

basically, i'm not convinced about anything to do with this. it doesnt matter that there's a bunch of people saying it was the U.S government, or even if they were saying it was aliens, what matters is that information is being withheld regarding many aspects of this - which is obviously very suspicious.
the government has that info and wont release it, even though it would result in millions of americans trusting them much more.

if you straight off think there's nothing in any part of this that sounds iffy then i cant help but think that you must be some brainwashed patriot. if you think there's something in 'all' of these conspiracies theories - then you're a nut. there's some middle ground where us 'thinking' people are.

dont you find it hard to trust your govenment when they straight out lie to you. we arent told what's really taking place in the middle east, it's not because they're run by mentalists, that is the number one trick in the orwellian book...
personally i suspect, and this is just a thought, that america and israel and a few other countries govenments are in allegiance and there's a long-term plan of take-over of most of the middle-east, partially for the oil, mostly for world power.

what they tell you 'is the truth' - 'isnt the truth', so what are you supposed to think? ...for yourself!

Again, the cores were simply never designed to stand completely independently of the rest of the building. Roughly analogously, a drain-pipe bolted to the side of a very tall building maybe perfectly secure and could even provide enough stability for someone to climb; however, that same drain-pipe left free-standing in an open area would collapse of its own accord.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you mention something "dissolving in mid-air". Can you clarify that for me?

From an epistemological and a platonic perspective, to be able to rationally reach the conclusion that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 looked considerably suspicious, one would have to be reasonably familiar with what this kind of skyscraper collapsing due to a combination of severe structural damage and widespread fires should look like. Unfortunately however, there exist no comparable examples for us to evaluate. Prior to 9/11, the only time the vast majority of us will have seen a high-rise building collapse is due to a controlled demolition, so it's perfectly natural to draw such a cognitive association.

Indeed, World Trade Center 7 wasn't hit by a plane. However, as I've already said, it suffered severe structural damage from the impact of a collapsing 110-storey skyscraper; it also suffered eight hours of widespread, unfought fires. Further, World Trade Center 7's collapse wasn't particularly "graceful". The collapse caused significant damage to 30 West Broadway and The Verizon Building and minor damage to several others; the debris spanned the width of Barcley Street. The substructure of the east mechanical penthouse began sinking into the main superstructure due to an internal collapse appreciably before the main superstructure -- including the visible facades, etc. -- of the building collapsed. (Incidentally, controlled demolitions simply do not exhibit this kind of behaviour -- yet more evidence against the controlled demolition theory.)