>> ^Jinx:

Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.


I think what's interesting is that like the man says, everyone assumed it was NOT the impact but the jet fuel that brought the buildings down. Unless the offical line is now changing.

I doubt the impact of a fragile aircraft that that disintegrated into a million pieces was enough to bring down a super strong structure designed to resist all that nature can throw at it. To bring down a building that size you would normally have to demolish it...

Still my issue is what the proposed rigging of the building would have looked like. What are they proposing exactly? Would only certain points and floors require rigging?

Sigh

While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

>> ^Duckman33:

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?


The problem with JFK Assassination theories is that no one can come up with WHY those who were supposed to be involved would want to assassinate him. Not that it matters, it basically wastes peoples time while they go to conventions and discuss the JFK assassination instead of say participating in their democracy or trying to make life better for their community.

Also for the 9-11 Conspiracy theories I used to be into it big time. You ever wonder why no one has brought the question to an engineering journal...or architecture organization? Someone who can do some experiments and maybe use their expertise to help people answer this question. I posed that to a few Truthers once and they told me that the US Government must've gotten to them. That assumes that they're that good at keeping a secret with thousands of people involved and if they have that sort of reach we might as well just give up. If they have the power to control all those people...we've basically already lost. Which is why I don't believe it anymore...it just doesn't make sense to me.

>> ^choggie:
Why then, did Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC compound, in need of asbestos removal and major repairs say "we had to pull it" when asked about WTC 7? Answer-He got sloppy on the record.


If you go look up the source, you'll find Silverstein doesn't say "we", he says the firefighters decided to "pull", in light of the terrible loss of life they'd seen already, and then they watched the building collapse.

I don't see how your claim makes any sense. What's your scenario here? Insurance fraud? Would Silverstein deliberately blow up his building to cash in on the attacks only to suddenly forget he did that and admit to it all on TV? Seriously? Or are you saying it was part of a plot to further enrage the American people to bolster the Bush administration? Why would they demolish the building in secret? Just saying it was too badly damaged by who-knows-what related to the plane crashes and it was seen as safest to just take the whole thing down would have been enough. I don't see how the claim it was blown up makes any sense - what's the motive?

>> ^rebuilder:
Seems to me this would be pretty much what you'd expect for a building with a largely glass facade. Glass panes are pretty fragile, so when such a building collapses, you'd expect the glass to fall apart quite uniformly on all sides, regardless of how uniform the destruction of the support structures was. Nothing will come through a solid structure until said structure is destroyed. A collapse would most definitely result in a drastic increase of pressure inside the building, forcing smoke and gases out wherever they can exit. Combine a downward cascade of bursting glass panes with a pressurized interior, and this is what you get. The expulsion of gases could only be asymmetric if the bursting of glass were, and that seems highly unlikely to be the case.
Beyond that, I don't see the logic of the Bush administration conspiring to blow up the towers in this manner. Two planes were itentionally crashed into the WTC. If they wanted an excuse to start a war, introduce PATRIOT act etc., that would be quite sufficient. There's little extra benefit to making sure the towers come all the way down, and plenty of risk. I don't buy the idea that the towers were rigged to blow.


here ya go rebuilder:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Building-the-World-Trade-Center-Towers-1811
watch this.
it is a documentary (choggie's post ironically)which it details the construction of the towers.
specifically pay attention to the architects and engineers when they discuss how the towers will react to MULTIPLE plane crashes into the tower.
let me know when you are done so we can go over things like physics.
after that we shall move onto the fairly large archives of "false flag operations".

again ..i am not saying that this was a government job.
what i AM saying is that to reject any possibility of that being the case is just naive.
there is a very strong possibility.
history alludes to that fact over and over and over.

Seems to me this would be pretty much what you'd expect for a building with a largely glass facade. Glass panes are pretty fragile, so when such a building collapses, you'd expect the glass to fall apart quite uniformly on all sides, regardless of how uniform the destruction of the support structures was. Nothing will come through a solid structure until said structure is destroyed. A collapse would most definitely result in a drastic increase of pressure inside the building, forcing smoke and gases out wherever they can exit. Combine a downward cascade of bursting glass panes with a pressurized interior, and this is what you get. The expulsion of gases could only be asymmetric if the bursting of glass were, and that seems highly unlikely to be the case.

Beyond that, I don't see the logic of the Bush administration conspiring to blow up the towers in this manner. Two planes were itentionally crashed into the WTC. If they wanted an excuse to start a war, introduce PATRIOT act etc., that would be quite sufficient. There's little extra benefit to making sure the towers come all the way down, and plenty of risk. I don't buy the idea that the towers were rigged to blow.

I love Jesse Ventura, but all these conspiracy theories are questionable in motive. Just because you have a camera crew, doesn't mean that you should be allowed into any building you want. Just because it's "unclassified" doesn't mean it's open to the public. Just because he did demolitions in the SEALS doesn't mean that a high-rise building collapse is going to behave the same as anything he's ever blown up.

I think he's playing it up for ratings, which is ok - the show looks more interesting than 95% of other reality tv shows.

I wonder if he's going to cover the conspiracy of whether or not GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com ?

You know what buddy? FUCK YOU! I'm tired of you fucking pricks launching personal insult attacks on me because I don't blindly believe everything I'm told. I could give a fuckin' rats ass what NIST and all the other "experts" say. There are just as many experts that say the contrary so again, FUCK YOU!

In reply to this comment by StukaFox:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^IronDwarf:
Perfect video to show morons who think any of the WTC buildings were demolished by explosive charges. Even from a noisy helicopter you could hear the ridiculously loud explosives being set off in sequence before the building collapses. Where is that sound in any of the hundreds of collapsing WTC videos?

Morons? Why are we morons? Because we don't believe everything we are told?


No, you're a moron because you've been shown time and time and time and time and time again how the WTC collapsed -- everyone from NIST to Popular Science -- and despite all these reports, you and the rest of the dipshits in the Mystery Machine think you're going to pull the mask off Bin Laden and find Old Man Bush.

THAT'S what makes you a moron.

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^IronDwarf:
Perfect video to show morons who think any of the WTC buildings were demolished by explosive charges. Even from a noisy helicopter you could hear the ridiculously loud explosives being set off in sequence before the building collapses. Where is that sound in any of the hundreds of collapsing WTC videos?

Morons? Why are we morons? Because we don't believe everything we are told?


No, you're a moron because you've been shown time and time and time and time and time again how the WTC collapsed -- everyone from NIST to Popular Science -- and despite all these reports, you and the rest of the dipshits in the Mystery Machine think you're going to pull the mask off Bin Laden and find Old Man Bush.

THAT'S what makes you a moron.

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^IronDwarf:
Perfect video to show morons who think any of the WTC buildings were demolished by explosive charges. Even from a noisy helicopter you could hear the ridiculously loud explosives being set off in sequence before the building collapses. Where is that sound in any of the hundreds of collapsing WTC videos?

Morons? Why are we morons? Because we don't believe everything we are told?
How about: perfect video to show the ass hats that think the WTC came down from a jet hitting it when it was designed to withstand that kind of impact. Or the fact that no building on record has ever come down from a fire, even after some have burned for over 10 hours, let alone 2 or 3 hours.
Oh yeah I forgot about the jet that hit building 7. Oh wait, that came down from "debris" from the WTC towers hitting it and causing yet another collapse due to fire....
Yawn.


What about the noise from the explosive charges that were "used"?

>> ^IronDwarf:
Perfect video to show morons who think any of the WTC buildings were demolished by explosive charges. Even from a noisy helicopter you could hear the ridiculously loud explosives being set off in sequence before the building collapses. Where is that sound in any of the hundreds of collapsing WTC videos?


Morons? Why are we morons? Because we don't believe everything we are told?

How about: perfect video to show the ass hats that think the WTC came down from a jet hitting it when it was designed to withstand that kind of impact. Or the fact that no building on record has ever come down from a fire, even after some have burned for over 10 hours, let alone 2 or 3 hours.

Oh yeah I forgot about the jet that hit building 7. Oh wait, that came down from "debris" from the WTC towers hitting it and causing yet another collapse due to fire....

Yawn.

>> ^IronDwarf:
Perfect video to show morons who think any of the WTC buildings were demolished by explosive charges. Even from a noisy helicopter you could hear the ridiculously loud explosives being set off in sequence before the building collapses. Where is that sound in any of the hundreds of collapsing WTC videos?


Yeah, people have been trying to tell truthers that for quite some time. It's basically like debating with a religious person. The funniest thing about it is that these people keep harping on about "don't watch the mainstream media, find the truth yourself" and then these same people jump on the next unsubstansiated claim some dude with way too much time put on the interwebs.

Perfect video to show morons who think any of the WTC buildings were demolished by explosive charges. Even from a noisy helicopter you could hear the ridiculously loud explosives being set off in sequence before the building collapses. Where is that sound in any of the hundreds of collapsing WTC videos?

I keep waiting to see what's so convincing for the people here and I can't find it. But rather than counter-arguing I'll give my advice as a scientist to the people who present these things.

1) Quit talking about the "myth" and "official story." You should be proposing this as a hypothesis as an alternative to the standard hypothesis. Presenting the scientific method as a way to tell the truth from lies is a perfect example of this where they should have simply described it as a method for determining the truth. You're giving away an emotional conviction toward the conclusion of the study.

2) Quit mentioning that no building has collapsed due to fire before. It's irrelevant.

3) Almost all of the eyewitness accounts should be ignored - especially given the chaotic nature of the events that day and especially people claiming to have heard explosions.

4) The fact that the towers fell mostly on their own footprint is exactly what you'd expect from a building collapsing under the weight of the topmost floors. There's simply no source of momentum to force the tower to fall sideways. Building 7 is more interesting though and the video spent more time on this.

6) Too much of the analysis is based on small samples and having been done by this Dr. Jones alone. It seems as though there could be several other explanations for the thermite evidence Jones found that isn't presented. I'm not even saying they're better explanations, but I feel pretty certain someone has presented other explanations and this guy doesn't present them.

...Anyway, I'm getting bored. Basically, by the way this is presented I can't believe this guy, or any others I've seen, are being objective and so I can't shake the feeling that there's lots of data that isn't being presented here. I spend a lot of time listening to technical talks and you can quickly tell the difference between someone presenting scientific results and someone trying to sell you something.

Did you bother to read the article or just decide to post something snarky? Popular Mechanics was reporting on the latest NIST report regarding Building 7, which determined that the building collapsed due to fire.